Building blocks for good water governance

Transcription

•
1
Building blocks
for good
water governance
Herman Havekes, Maarten Hofstra,
Andrea van der Kerk,
Bart Teeuwen, Robert van Cleef
and Kevin Oosterloo
•
2
This publication has been made possible by
the financial support of Dutch Water Authorities,
NWB Fund, the Foundation for Applied Water
Research (STOWA), the Ministry of Infrastructure
and the Environment and Rijkswaterstaat.
B u i l d i n g B lo c k s f o r G o o d W at e r G o v e r n a n c e
Building blocks
for good
water governance
Andrea van der Kerk,
Bart Teeuwen, Robert van Cleef
and Kevin Oosterloo
Foreword
6
1 Water
governance:
a framework
for better
communication
2 A powerful
administrative
organization
of water
management
3 A legallyembedded
system of
water
management
8
22
36
4 Planning
5 Adequate
financing
of water
management
6
Participatory
approach
56
82
100
7 Cooperation;
indispensable
for good water
governance
8 Water
governance
in the Awash
Basin,
Ethiopia
118
Background
authors
153
138
Colophon
156
•
6
B u i l din g B lo c k s for Good W ater Go v ernan c e
Foreword
In many documents, the current water crisis, in which almost half of
the world’s population has no or insufficient access to clean water
and sanitation, and flooding and drought appear to be an everyday
occurrence, is referred to as a governance crisis. That’s why good water
governance is a prerequisite to improve water management all over
the world. Fortunately, the notion of the importance of good water
governance has strongly grown during the last years. The Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, in a number
of studies, has recently underlined the necessity for good water governance,
and formulated even a series of specific principles in this field.
But what exactly is good water governance? At the end of 2011, the Dutch
Water Governance Centre (WGC) produced a brief memorandum in which
five elementary building blocks for good water governance are listed.
These are:
•
•
•
•
•
a powerful administrative organization of water management;
a legally embedded system of water law;
an adequate financing system;
a systematic (planning) approach;
the participation of stakeholders.
Without these building blocks, there can be no good water governance.
In a series of projects, the WGC has been confronted the five past years
with the importance of these building blocks. For this reason, four water
governance experts, Herman Havekes, Maarten Hofstra, Andrea van der
Kerk and Bart Teeuwen were asked to further elaborate on each of these
building blocks. The first edition of this book was published end-2013.
It was the tangible result of that request. Now we are some years further
and wiser. Because of the fact the notion of good water governance has
become almost (inter)national common sense, WGC will stop its activities
by April 2016. On occasion of this fact it seemed a good idea to publish
a second edition of the book with the latest insights. For some chapters
new authors were found with Robert van Cleef and Kevin Oosterloo.
•
7
This book has the following structure. Chapter 1 considers the term water
governance in a more general sense, while the three-layer model of
water governance is introduced and explained. This model is an extremely
useful tool for assessing water governance. Chapters 2 to 6 then represent
a further elaboration of the five building blocks listed above.
Chapter 7 and 8 are totally new. Chapter 7 underlines the necessity of
cooperation in water management and gives some valuable examples.
Chapter 8 – as a case study - reviews the Awash River Basin in Ethiopia
through the building blocks for good water governance. For each element,
the Dutch situation is briefly described, not to serve as a blueprint for
others, but merely to provide a clear point of departure. However, the
Netherlands has a reputation to cherish on water governance.
Like OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria twittered some weeks ago:
“Tell the Dutch what water governance is is like tell the Eskimos about
ice…”. The book contains also a number of examples from international
water management practice. In that sense, it brings together theory and
practice.
On behalf of the WGC, I wish you much reading pleasure. I sincerely hope
that this book will make once again a valuable contribution to improving
water governance in the world. After all, for all our sakes, it is essential
that we do achieve improved water management.
Corné Nijburg
Director WGC
•
8
•
9
1 Water
governance:
a framework
for better
communication
Author: Maarten Hofstra
Introduction
The term ‘water governance’ has been
gaining popularity in the world of water
management since the turn of the century.
Along with the development (since the
1980s) of the conviction that integrated
water management – or integrated water
resources management (IWRM) – is a
prerequisite for effective, efficient and
sustainable water management, the
opinion is growing that good water
governance is essential in order to be
successful in water management. Without
good governance it will be difficult to
achieve the desired results in the control
of water pollution, the prevention of
disastrous flooding, and the effective,
efficient and well-balanced dealing with
periods of water shortage.
In his contribution to the Panel of the UN
Secretary General, in preparation for the
Johannesburg Summit in 2002, HRH the
Prince of Orange stated that ‘the world
water crisis is a crisis of governance –
not one of scarcity’.1 The second World
Water Development Report’ report (2006)
used the same statement to highlight the
central role of water governance.
The report makes clear that many believe
that water governance requires attention.
Less clear is what exactly ‘water
governance’ is. How is it defined? What
elements belong to it? How can it be used
in practice? In this publication, I contribute
to a better understanding of ‘water
governance’ and offer a framework as a
supporting instrument to compare the
different definitions and descriptions of
water governance.
In the following section, I show that
the popularity (and use) of the word
‘governance’ has increased at the expense
of the popularity of the word ‘government’
This more or less coincides with the
decreasing attention to and attractiveness
of the ‘nation state’. After that, I discuss
and compare various definitions of
governance. Then I present a three-layer
model of water governance. In the last
section, I show the usefulness of this
model in relation to other systematic
approaches and make some concluding
remarks.
HRH Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange (2002),
No Water, No Future: A Water Focus for Johannesburg.
1
•
10
Government and governance
While searching the internet for an answer
to the question ‘What is water governance?’,
one of the websites I came across was
the WATER GOVERNANCE BLOG, which
was started by Dave Huitema of the
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)
of VU University Amsterdam and Sander
Meijerink of the Institute for Management
Research, Radboud University Nijmegen.2
In their explanation they point out that
in the 1990s, scholars seized on the term
‘governance’ to make better sense of the
situation that had arisen in many countries
since the 1980s, when ‘big’ government
had retreated under the pressure of
neoliberal reformers like Ronald Reagan
and Margaret Thatcher. In essence, the
power and authority of the nation state
has been transferred to markets, civil
society, independent bodies, the courts,
and both higher and lower jurisdictional
levels (based on Huitema, 2005).
Lower and
higher
jurisdictional
levels
Independent
bodies and
courts
From
nation
state
to
Markets
The shift from government to governance
is illustrated by this diagram, which
shows the transfer of power and authority
from the nation state towards:
• lower and higher jurisdictional levels
(de-concentration, decentralization,
devolution, Europeanization,
globalization);
• Markets (privatizations, quasi markets,
contracting out, public–private
partnerships);
•Civil society (networks, self-governance,
participation);
• Independent bodies (agentification) and
courts (juridicialization).
This trend was also observed by Professor
Balkenende in his inaugural speech3
on 24 March 2011, when he accepted
the chair on Governance, Institutions
and Internationalization at Erasmus
University Rotterdam. Balkenende stated
that traditional organizational paradigms
(ordeningsparadigma’s) have become
out-dated and that the current situation is
somewhat ambiguous. He pointed at the
end of the concept of nation state. Power
is becoming more and more fragmented,
and less exclusively the domain of
governments: ‘Authorities continue to
exercise tasks, but they do so much more
in dialogue with others.’ Those ‘others’
can be new economies, multinationals,
NGOs and religious groups.
Civil
society
Prof. Jan Peter Balkenende, Over governance en
maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid: hoe verder?
(‘On governance and societal responsibility: how to
proceed?’), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 24 March 2011.
3
http://www.watergovernance.eu/what-is-water-governance/
- visited Nov. 2012
2
•
11
That ‘governance’ is gaining attention
at the expense of ‘government’ is also
evidenced by Google’s Ngram Viewer,
which gives an indication of the frequency
of the use of terms, based on 5.2 million
books digitalized by Google. The graphs
that can be made this way confirm the
tendency described above. The data show
that the use of ‘government’ gradually
decreased between 1970 and 2008.
Looking at ‘governance’ in the same
way shows that here the situation is the
other way around: the word is being used
increasingly often and its popularity has
grown especially since 1990.
Governance
What attracts scientists to the term
‘governance’ is its ability to ‘cover
the whole range of institutions and
relationships involved in the process of
governing’
Pierre and Peters 2000
Defining
‘water governance’
In June 2009, international experts were
invited to a special workshop held in
Singapore, in order to address the issue of
water governance.4
The following is an excerpt from the
summarizing paper:
Governance has been used mostly as an
umbrella concept and no agreed definition
Cecilia Tortajada (2010): Water Governance Some Critical
Issues, International Journal of Water Resources
Development, 26:2, pp. 297-307.
4
exists. Governance is not synonymous
with government. It is instead a complex
process that considers multi-level
participation beyond the state, where
decision making includes not only public
institutions, but also the private sector,
civil society and society in general. Good
governance frameworks refer to new
processes and methods of governing
and changed conditions of ordered rule
on which the actions and inactions of
all parties concerned are transparent
and accountable. It embraces the
relationships between governments and
societies, including laws, regulations,
institutions, and formal and informal
interactions which affect the ways in which
governance systems function, stressing
the importance of involving more voices,
responsibilities, transparency and
accountability of formal and informal
organizations associated in any process.
Let’s look at the words that are used
here: multi-level participation – public
institutions – private sector – civil
society – transparency – accountability –
relationships between – laws – regulations
– interactions – organizations – process.
That seems quite complex.
A factor that makes it even more complex
is that we all may mean different things
when we use words like this.
One of the difficult, but also challenging
aspects of defining something is that
we have to do it in a way, or a form, that
enables communication. We mostly use
language for this. One problem of using
language, however, is that we sometimes
•
12
need many words to make something
clear or to describe something. According
to some, this can be considered almost
impossible. Ludwig Wittgenstein is
often quoted on this. The last of the
theorems he gives in his Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus 5 is ‘Wovon man
nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man
schweigen’ (Whereof one cannot speak,
thereof one must be silent).
Wittgenstein didn’t mean that we should
not use language, but that we should
use it in such a way that we understand
what is going on, based on the described
facts that represent the truth, and that
language is unable to express something
that is not ‘in the world’, for instance
ethics. Wittgenstein writes in the preface
to his book: ‘What can be said at all can
be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
speak thereof one must be silent.’
Let’s look at some of the definitions of
governance that have been given by
various people and organizations.
In his Governing as Governance (2003),6
Jan Kooiman describes what he calls a
working definition of ‘social-political’ or
‘interactive’ governing and governance,
or simply governing and governance, as
follows:
Governing can be considered as the
totality of interactions, of which public
as well as private actors participate,
5
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1918), Tractatus logico-philosophicus,
Wien.
6
Jan Kooiman (2003), Governing as Governance, London,
Sage Publication Limited.
aimed at solving societal problems, or
creating societal opportunities; attending
to the institutions as contexts for these
governing interactions; and establishing
a normative foundation for all those
activities.
And:
Governance can be seen as the totality of
theoretical conceptions on governing.
In fact we see three levels in this
definition of governing/governance:
• the level or layer of the problems to
be solved or the opportunities to create,
• the level or layer of the institutions,
• the level or layer of the normative
foundation.
I will return to this later on. Let’s first look
at some other definitions that are often
quoted.
Global Water Partnership (2002):
Water governance can be described as a
range of political, social, economic and
administrative systems that are in place to
develop and manage water resources and
the delivery of water services, at different
levels of society.
Rogers and Hall (2003):
Governance aspects overlap with the
technical and economic aspects of water,
but governance points us to the political
and administrative elements of solving a
problem or exploiting an opportunity.
These are just a few of the many
definitions that have been given.
•
13
In their article ‘Putting the cart before the
horse: Water governance and IWRM’,7
Lautze and colleagues present selected
definitions of governance. These are given
in the following table.
Graham et al. (2003)
.. Governance is a process whereby
societies or organizations make
their important decisions,
determine whom they involve in
the process and how they render
account. Since a process is hard
to observe, students of governance
tend to focus our attention
on the governance system or
framework upon which the process
rests — that is, the agreements,
procedures, conventions or
policies that define who gets
power, how decisions are taken and
how accountability is rendered.
International Institute of
Administrative Sciences (1996)
The process whereby elements in
society wield power, authority
and influence, and enact policies
and decisions concerning public
life, and economic and social
development.
Kaufmann et al. (2005)
The traditions and institutions
by which authority in a country
is exercised. This includes the
process by which governments are
selected, monitored and replaced;
Lautze, J., de Silva, S., Giordano, M. and Sanford, L. (2011),
Putting the cart before the horse: Water governance and IWRM, Natural Resources Forum, 35: 1-8.
7
the capacity of the government
to effectively formulate and
implement sound policies; and the
respect of citizens and the state
for the institutions that govern
economic and social interactions
among them.
Institute of Governance
Studies (2008)
The concept of governance is ...
the sum total of the institutions
and processes by which society
orders and conducts its collective
or common affairs.
UNESCAP (2009)
The process of decision-making and
the process by which decisions are
implemented (or not implemented).
UNDP (1997)
The exercise of political,
economic and administrative
authority to manage a nation’s
affairs. It is the complex
mechanisms, processes and
institutions through which
citizens and groups articulate
their interests, exercise their
legal rights and obligations, and
mediate their differences.
ADB Institute (2005)
Summary of existing literature on
governance includes: the processes
by which governments are chosen,
monitored, and changed; the
systems of interaction between the
administration, the legislature,
and the judiciary; the ability
of government to create and to
•
14
implement public policy; and the
mechanisms by which citizens and
groups define their interests and
interact with institutions of
authority and with each other.
Miller and Ziegler (2006)
The manner in which power is
exercised through a country’s
economic, political, and social
institutions.
interaction between the organizations
responsible for the related political,
administrative, social, legal and financial
elements.
Many organizations are involved in water
issues, all on their own competences and
disciplines. Together they make sure that
clean and fresh water supply is guaranteed
in countries such as the Netherlands,
while flood risk is reduced to a minimum.’
In short: Water governance is all you need
to give water its place in society.
And of course a definition used by the
Water Governance Centre should be
mentioned:
‘Water governance refers to the way the
management of flood risk and water
resources, fresh water supply and waste
water treatment are organized, and the
There are other forms of communication
that may be used, like this graphical
display.8
Nevertheless the use of language for
explanation is still indispensable.
Water Governance
PuBLIC SECTOR /
government
Global
private sector
Institutions and policies
civil society
Accountability
National
Transparency
Resources /
infra-structure
Equality
Participation
...
Local
8
Wehn de Montalvo, U. Citizen participation in water
governance through knowledge sharing and feedback,
paper presented at the European Commission Citizen
Observatories Coordination Workshop, Brussels, 29–30
January 2013.
•
15
A three-layer model
of water governance
as a framework
To be able to communicate clearly
about the important aspects of water
governance, it seems useful to look more
closely at the basic elements. The ‘threelayer model of water governance’ can
be used for this. The core element of this
approach is that good water management
comprises three layers:
a content layer, an institutional layer and a
relational layer.
Content layer
Policy, knowledge and experience/skills
institutional layer
Organisation, legislation and financing
relational layer
Culture, ethics, cooperation, communication
and participation
for successful integrated water resources
management (the institutional layer).
In addition, in order to successfully solve
persistent water problems, attention
to what is called the relational layer is
required. Important elements of this layer
are communication and cooperation
between different actors and with
the public, stakeholder participation,
transparency and trust. Water governance
focuses most explicitly on the institutional
and relational layer, without neglecting
the importance of and relations with the
content layer.
The three-layer model
in relation to other
approaches
The three-layer model is intended not
merely to add yet another definition of
water governance to the existing ones, but
to create a framework that can be used to
compare the different approaches and be
employed as a checklist.
The OECD
A content layer: in addition to knowledge
of the water systems and the nature of the
problems, a good information position
and the experience and skills required to
solve the problems are also essential.
However, in most cases this is not
enough to achieve a good water status.
An adequate organizational framework
together with the necessary legal
instruments and a good financing
structure are fundamental requirements
A different way of analysing and assessing
water governance is used by the OECD
in the report ‘Water Governance in OECD
Countries: A Multi-level Approach’.9
Referring to definitions of water
governance given by both the Global
Water Partnership and the UN
Development Programme, the OECD
9
See OECD (2011), Water Governance in OECD Countries:
A Multi-level Approach, OECD Studies on Water, OECD
Publishing.
•
16
report describes water governance
as ‘ ... the set of systems that control
decision-making with regard to water
resources development and management.
It is therefore more about the way in
which decisions are made than about
the decisions themselves. It covers the
manner in which roles and responsibilities
(design, regulation and implementation)
are exercised in the management of water
and broadly encompasses the formal and
informal institutions by which authority is
exercised.’
The OECD Multi-level Governance
Framework is organized around seven
‘gaps’. These gaps can be seen as
points of attention that must or may be
considered:
administrative gap, information gap,
policy gap, capacity gap, funding gap,
objective gap and accountability gap
(see also paragraph 2.4). Arranging them
according to the three layers gives the
scheme as shown here.
The Water Governance
Centre building blocks
and the academic panel
assessment method
The same can be done with the five
building blocks described in ‘Building
blocks for good governance’ by the
Water Governance Centre (WGC)10 and
the assessment method developed by
the academic panel of the WGC. The
elements distinguished as building blocks
are administrative organization, water
law, financing system (and economic
analysis), systematic planning approach
and stakeholder participation.
The assessment method of the academic
panel focuses on juridical quality,
knowledge quality, economic quality,
institutional quality, and acting &
interacting capacities.
The following table shows the different
approaches brought together in the
three-layer model. As can be seen, there
are quite some similarities between the
Three layer OECD gap
approaches, but also some differences:
modelanalysis
legal instruments are not within the
scope of the OECD, while information
Content layer
Policy
is not mentioned separately in the WGC
Capacity
methods.
Information
institutional
layer
Administration
Funding
relational
layer
Objective
(motivational)
Accountability
10
http://www.watergovernancecentre.nl/Publikaties/
•
17
Three layer OECD gap
modelanalysis
Content layer
institutional
layer
Clear policy
Policy
Knowledge and
skills
Capacity
Information
Information
Organization
Administration
Knowledge
quality
Legislation
relational
layer
WGC ACADEMIC Building
Panel methodblocks wgc
Institutional
quality
Administrative
Organization
Juridical quality
Water law
Planning
Financing
Funding
Economic quality
Financing system
Culture and
ethics
Objectives
(motivational)
Acting and
interacting
capacities
Stakeholder
participation
Communication
and cooperation
Accountability
Participation
The three layer model
and the 12 OECD
Principles on Water
Governance
In 2015, in the context of their Water
Governance Initiative the OECD has
formulated a dozen principles on water
governance. The principles were endorsed
by a large number of public, private and
non-profit organisations at the 7th World
Water Forum in April 2015 in South Korea.
They were also welcomed by the OECD
Council at Ministerial level in June 2015
and will be included in a Recommendation
of the Council on Water in 2016.
The OECD Principles on Water
Governance11 intend to contribute to
tangible and outcome-oriented public
policies, based on three mutually
reinforcing and complementary
dimensions of water governance:
Effectiveness relates to the
contribution of governance to define
clear sustainable water policy
goals and targets at all levels of
government, to implement those policy
goals, and to meet expected targets.
11
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/OECD-Principles on-Water-Governance-brochure.pdf
•
18
Efficiency relates to the
contribution of governance to
maximise the benefits of sustainable
water management and welfare at the
least cost to society.
4
Trust and Engagement relate to
the contribution of governance
to building public confidence
and ensuring inclusiveness of
stakeholders through democratic
legitimacy and fairness for society
at large.
Additional, with respect to the elements of
the three-layer approach, is the attention
requested in the second principle for the
appropriate scale of the water
management. An aspect that can be
considered as part of the institutional layer.
Each of these three dimensions in turn
covers four underlying principles.
The dimension of effectiveness
consists of the following four principles:
1Clearly allocate and distinguish
roles and responsibilities for water
policy making, policy implementation,
operational management and regulation,
and foster co-ordination across these
responsible authorities.
2
Manage water at the appropriate
scale(s) within integrated basin
governance systems to reflect local
conditions, and foster co-ordination
between the different scales.
3
Encourage policy coherence through
effective cross-sectoral co-ordination,
especially between policies for water
and the environment, health, energy,
agriculture, industry, spatial planning
and land use.
Adapt the level of capacity of
responsible authorities to the
complexity of water challenges to
be met, and to the set of competencies
required to carry out their duties.
The dimension of efficiency consists of
the following four principles:
5
Produce, update, and share timely,
consistent, comparable and policyrelevant water and water-related data
and information, and use it to guide,
assess and improve water policy.
6
Ensure that governance arrangements
help mobilise water finance and allocate
financial resources in an efficient,
transparent and timely manner.
7
Ensure that sound water management
regulatory frameworks are effectively
implemented and enforced in pursuit of
the public interest.
8
Promote the adoption and
implementation of innovative water
governance practices across responsible
authorities, levels of government and
relevant stakeholders.
The eighth principle - to promote
innovative water governance practices - is
not explicitly mentioned in the three-layer
model. Innovation can concern both the
•
19
content and the institutions, including
the communication (relational) which
demands attention.
Finally the dimension of trust and
engagement consists of the following four
principles:
9
Mainstream integrity and transparency
practices across water policies, water
institutions and water governance
frameworks for greater accountability
and trust in decision-making.
10Promote stakeholder engagement
for informed and outcome-oriented
contributions to water policy design
and implementation.
11Encourage water governance
frameworks that help manage trade-offs
across water users, rural and urban areas, and generations.
12Promote regular monitoring and
evaluation of water policy and
governance where appropriate, share
the results with the public and make
adjustments when needed.
Most of these latter four principles reflect
elements of the relational layer, although
the eleventh principle of preventing of
passing on (promoting fairness, equity) is
a bit more explicitly elaborated.
Conclusions
Each approach has its positive points as
well as its points of discussion – as does
the three-layer model. Nevertheless, the
model can help to communicate about
the essentials of water governance, and
can also be of help when comparing the
different approaches of water governance.
In the annex a short overview and
summary of the three layer model is given
together with a set of related questions.
These related questions together with the
questions “what do we have that works?”,
“what is missing?” and “how can water
governance be improved?” can be used
for a quick assessment as well as forming
a basis for a more thorough analysis of
shortcomings and possible solutions.
Although the OECD Principles are arranged
in a different order, they do not deviate
significantly from the elements of
the three layer model of water governance.
In the following chapters, some important
building blocks of the institutional layer
and the relational layer are elaborated.
We first look at the ORGANIZATION and
the LEGISLATION, which are basic for
any policy field to be able to work. Then,
we pay attention to the instruments of
PLANNING and FINANCING. Hereafter
the various aspects of PARTICIPATION
are explained. Thereafter the necessity for
COOPERATION within and outside water
management will be discussed. Finally,
the building blocks will be tested for their
relevance in Ethiopias Awash Basin.
•
20
three layer model of water governance with related
questions
Is there a clear policy and planning for the water
management?
Do we have sufficient and relevant information?
Content layer
Do we have the necessary knowledge and skills?
Are the roles ans responsibilities clear?
institutional layer
Do we have the necessary tools?
Is functioning of the financing system ensured?
Is the water policy well connected with other policy
relational layer
fields (e.g. spatial planning)?
Are all the stakeholders involved in decision making
for water management?
Is there transparancy in water management?
Is there enough confidence to work together?
•
21
What do we have
that works?
Is there a clear policy
and planning for the water
management?
Do we have sufficient and
relevant information?
Do we have the necessary
knowledge and and skills?
Are the roles and
responsibilities clear?
Do we have the necessary
tools?
Is functioning of the financing
system ensured?
Is the water policy well
connected with other policy
fields (e.g. spatial planning?
Are all stakeholders involved
in decision making for water
management?
Is there transparency in water
management?
Is there enough confidence to
work together?
What is
missing?
How can water
governance be
improved?
•
22
2 A powerful
administrative
organization
of water
management
Author: Herman Havekes
•
23
•
24
2.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the administrative
organization of water management in
respect of both the water system and the
water chain (or water services). Effectively,
the administrative organization of water
management is not the same in any two
places, and ranges from highly centralized
to highly decentralized, from exclusively
public through to a regime offering
far more space for private parties and
from all-encompassing administration
through to separate functional water
organizations. In itself, this situation is not
necessarily problematic. After all, it does
justice to the inherent differences that
exist between countries in respect of their
constitutional, political, social and cultural
structures and principles. In that sense,
therefore, it is not possible to provide
a single blueprint. On the other hand,
to ensure sound water management,
it is essential that the administrative
organization, irrespective of how it is
structured, is sufficiently powerful.
In this chapter I discuss what is needed for
a powerful administrative organization.
Following a brief outline of the Dutch
organization of water management in
section 2.2, I provide a series of basic
principles for a powerful administrative
organization in section 2.3. Subsequently,
in section 2.4, I identify the individual
gaps that need to be filled on the basis
of gaps identified in the past by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). Section 2.5
then deals with the importance of close
cooperation between the various water
managers on a national and international
scale, thereby emphasizing their relevant
administrative and social environment.
In section 2.6, finally, I conclude by
giving a number of specific requirements
that should be imposed on the sound
administrative organization of water
management.
2.2 The administrative
organization of
water management in
The Netherlands 1
In the Netherlands, water management
is undertaken at all levels of government:
central government (Ministry of
Infrastructure and the Environment),
provinces, regional water authorities
and municipalities – albeit that the 2009
Water Act allocates the tasks of ‘water
management’ exclusively to central
government and the regional water
authorities. A role is also set aside for the
drinking water companies. In real terms,
the tasks are shared as follows.
On the one hand, central government is
responsible for national water policy while
on the other hand, via the agency of
Rijkswaterstaat (RWS - the Directorate
General for Public Works and Water
Management), it is responsible for
managing the hydrological main system
consisting of the North Sea, the IJsselmeer
lake, the Wadden Sea, the Eems-Dollard
See H.F.M.W. van Rijswick and H.J.M. Havekes,
European and Dutch Water Law, Europa Law Publishing,
Groningen 2012, p. 151-158, and Water Governance.
The Dutch Water Authority Model, fourth edition,
Association of Regional Water Authorities,
The Hague 2015, p. 14-29.
1
•
25
estuary, the Zeeland delta waters, the major
rivers and a number of canals. Central
government also bears responsibility
for the coastline and is manager of three
major flood defence structures (the
Afsluitdijk and the Eastern Scheldt and
Maeslant barriers). Central government
also manages the main navigation channels.
The (12) provinces are responsible for
regional water policy and the issuing
of permits for three categories of big
groundwater extraction (for drinking
water, industrial extraction in excess of
150,000 m3 per year and for so-called
geothermal energy systems). Generally
speaking they are also responsible for
regional navigation channel management.
The (22) regional water authorities are
responsible for water safety and manage
the water quantity and water quality of all
other waters, including groundwater and
waste water treatment. In that connection,
they manage more than 3,400 pumping
stations, 230,000 km of drainage ditches
and approximately 350 waste water
treatment plants. They also manage
approx. 3,450 km of primary flood defence
structures and 14,000 km of secundary
flood defence structures. The regional
water authorities are also responsible
for the control of muskrats and coypu.
In certain cases, regional water authorities
are also in charge of navigation channel
management.
The (390) municipalities are responsible
for managing sewerage systems. They
also have legal duties of care for rainwater
run-off and urban groundwater levels.
The (10) water supply companies, finally,
are responsible for the public drinking
water supply. With the exception of the
Amsterdam Waternet, which is in the form
of a foundation, these are private companies.
However, the Drinking Water Act specifies
that the shares of these companies must
be in public hands, which effectively
qualifies them as semi-public organizations.
Regional Water Authorities
1 12 390
22 10
Municipalities
Provinces
National government
(ministry for Infrastructure & the Environment + Rijkswaterstaat)
Drinking Water
Companies
•
26
This overview demonstrates that on the
one hand the water organization in the
Netherlands is entirely public while on the
other hand, it is extremely decentralized.
However, the private sector does play
an important role in water management,
for example in the construction and
strengthening of dikes, the building
of pumping stations and waste water
treatment plants, the maintenance of
waters and the replacement of sewerage
systems. These are tasks not undertaken
by government. The highly decentralized
structure is partially a result of the
historical perspective. The first regional
water authorities date back to the second
half of the thirteenth century, when there
was not yet a State of the Netherlands.
Decentralization of water management
has some clear advantages: decrease
of bureaucracy, increase of efficiency,
distribution of administrative powers,
better checks and balances, more control
opportunities, use of local knowledge and
close to the involved stakeholders, who
are part of the decision-making process.
For being fruitful and successful the Dutch
experiences learn that decentralized
authorities must have sufficient staff, skills
and knowledge, a range of administrative
powers (ordinances, permits, law
enforcement), an adequate financial
position (own tax income) and a strong
relation with important stakeholders.
This overview at the same time reveals
that in respect of the so-called water
chain (drinking water supply – sewerage
system – waste water treatment), the
organization in the Netherlands deviates
from that in many other countries where
these tasks are often entrusted to a
single administrative (often municipal)
or private party. In the Netherlands,
as already explained, these tasks
are entrusted to the drinking water
companies, the municipalities and the
regional water authorities. Given the
intrinsic ties between these tasks, in
particular between the sewerage system
and waste water treatment (the so-called
waste water chain), this situation imposes
severe demands on the coordination
and cooperation between these parties.
That coordination is laid down in law for
the municipalities and regional water
authorities, in section 3.8 of the Water Act.
In 2014 the OECD published its report
on Dutch Water Governance.2
The judgement was quite positive.
Dutch water governance is qualified as
a “global reference” and the “robust
and adjustable institutional and policy
framework” is appreciated. Nevertheless
some elements, like the remarkable low
awareness of Dutch people of the interest
of proper water management and the
relation between water management and
spatial planning, could be improved.
OECD (2014), Water Governance in the Netherlands:
Fit for the Future?, OECD Studies on Water,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
2
•
27
2.3 Basic principles of
a powerful administrative
organization
We have observed above that the
management differs from place to place
throughout the world, and that no specific
blueprints can be provided. Nonetheless,
a number of trends can be identified.
Worldwide, one trend is emerging which
is aimed at establishing organizations
on the scale of entire river basins, the
so-called River Basin Approach. A certain
trend towards decentralization is also
becoming apparent. Although central
government does play an important role
in water management in practically all
countries and in Israel, Turkey, Japan
and South Korea is effectively almost the
only player, we are increasingly seeing
responsibilities and authorities awarded to
regional and local organizations, with a
role even being set aside for local interest
groups of farmers, businesses, fishermen
and nature organizations. The (planned)
Catchment Management Agencies in South
Africa are an excellent example. Contrary
to what is often assumed, therefore, the
Dutch regional water authorities are
certainly not the only example of regional
and local water organizations of this kind.
Finally, there is evidence that the trend
towards privatization in water management
as it started to emerge several years ago,
has been brought to an end. Take for
example the current discussions in France
about the organization of water chain
management, whereby certain (large)
municipalities are considering the
possibility of once again taking on these
tasks, for themselves. Paris took such a
decision some years ago. In other words,
throughout the world, government
has an important role to play in water
management and in 85% of cases, the
‘water service’ or drinking water supply
is in public hands. Given the existential
importance of water management for the
population and the relationship between
water management and many other fields
in which the government is active, this is
a positive observation. It also does justice
to the fact that water is not just another
commodity, and as a consequence cannot
be left in the hands of private parties.
As already explained, however, there are
plenty of opportunities for the ‘market’ in
the actual execution of water management.
Although the organization of water
management varies globally, a number of
basic principles can still be identified for
a powerful administrative organization
of water management. Specifically, the
following principles can be distinguished.
Firstly there must be absolute clarity on
which organization is responsible for
which water tasks. In this connection we
should refer to article 3 of the European
Water Framework Directive (WFD),
which instructs the Member States to
ensure ‘the appropriate administrative
arrangements, including the identification
of the competent administrative authority’.
This is effectively the starting point for
everything. There must be absolute clarity
on which organization is responsible for
a particular water defence structure, the
quality of a given water or the supply
of drinking water. Only then will any
citizen or farmer who is dissatisfied with
a particular water situation know whom
•
28
he can call to account. In the Dutch
Water Regulations, the implementing
regulations for the Water Act, maps in
appendices are used to give a precise
indication of which waters are managed
by whom (RWS or a regional water
authority). In Brazil the Federal District as
well as the (27) states have jurisdiction on
the same rivers. This “double dominion”
has been strongly criticized in the recent
OECD report on Brazil.
A second absolute requirement is that
the public organization entrusted with
certain responsibilities has a sufficient
administrative and organizational scale,
and as a consequence can call upon a
well-equipped administrative service.
This service must offer the necessary
knowledge and experience, which not
only imposes demands on the training
and education of the civil servants, but
also the length of their period of service.
In certain countries, the employees of
water organizations commonly leave
after just eighteen months. Naturally,
this has negative consequences for the
establishment of relevant knowledge.
It also discourages the essential long-term
planning process.3 The administrative
service must also have access to
the necessary data and be open
to cooperation with other (public)
organizations and interest groups,
be keen to innovate and be willing to
See OECD (2013), Making Water Reform Happen in
Mexico, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, p. 29.
This report is the first so-called in-depth study by the
OECD, that considers water governance in a specific
country. In 2014 the referred report on the Netherlands
was published and in 2015 a report on Brazil followed
(OECD (2015), Water Resources Governance in Brazil,
OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris).
3
provide transparency on its activities.
All these elements therefore require an
administrative service of a certain scale.
As a consequence, wherever possible,
even though it is not possible to identify
the optimum scale, administrative
fragmentation should be avoided.
A third point relates to the allocation
of administrative powers. Imposing
responsibilities is one thing, but allocating
powers is quite another. Unfortunately,
this point is all too often lost from view.
The responsible public organization can
only correctly execute its water-related
tasks, if it can call upon specific (legal)
powers. Those powers can range from
the right to enter private land and to
issue permits for the extraction of surface
water and groundwater via the ability
to force land owners to cooperate with
waterworks essential for the common
good, right through to the ability to impose
administrative sanctions. Without such
specific powers, little will come of the
responsibilities.
A fourth point relates to money. Whatever
its nature, the water organization must
have access to sufficient financial
resources to be able to execute its tasks
(in this respect above all see chapter 5).
Not only must sufficient financial
resources be available for the necessary
investments, which in respect of water
management are always substantial,
but also for the annually-recurring
maintenance and management work
that necessarily follows. Maintenance
and management are unfortunately all
too often forgotten. There must also
be sufficient funding for the so-called
•
29
governance costs (administrative service,
monitoring, planning, permit awarding,
the levying of taxes, enforcement and
supervision). In many countries, it is
common practice for water organizations
to receive this funding from central
government. It is however almost equally
common for this funding to be insufficient,
resulting in the below par execution of
the water-related tasks. In that respect,
effectuation of the principle of cost
recovery for water services including
the principle of ‘the polluter pays’ as
laid down in article 9 of the WFD is much
recommended. The OECD added the
principle of ‘the beneficiary pays’ to this
list.4 This is a welcome addition, since it is
surely not unreasonable that agriculture
should pay for the water it extracts for
irrigation purposes. This basic financial
principle cannot be sufficiently underlined.
After all, poor or inadequate financial
arrangements almost by definition lead
to poor water management, as has been
demonstrated all too often, in practice. It
is not without reason that in a previous
OECD report, that will be further discussed
below, the funding gap is identified by
many countries as the greatest bottleneck
in water management.5
A fifth and final basic principle relates
to transparency, participation and
accountability. The water organizations
must demonstrate to the public and
interest groups what they do or intend
to do and must be ready to involve them
in those activities in good time, to allow
them to contribute their thoughts to the
decision making process. Fortunately,
this realization is becoming increasingly
prevalent and many countries already
operate a form of water resources
councils or water users associations,
in which households, businesses,
farmers, fishermen, energy supply
companies, shipping operators, nature
conservationists and environmental
protectionists and other groups are
represented.6 This development must be
powerfully continued, since the necessary
measures will be more successful if they
enjoy more grassroots social support.
The same applies to accountability.
Water management becomes inherently
more powerful if regularly accounted
for. What progress is being made? What
water quality has been achieved? How is
taxpayers’ money being spent? These are
just some of the questions about which
the public and interest groups will wish
to be informed. It goes without saying
that the water organizations must be
absolutely honest in their actions. A high
standard of integrity is required. Given
the huge amounts of money spent on
water management, worldwide, there is
See OECD (2012), A Framework for Financing Water
Resources Management, OECD Studies on Water,
OECD Publishing, Paris, p. 41-45.
5
See OECD (2011), Water Governance in OECD Countries:
A Multi-level Approach, OECD Studies on Water,
OECD Publishing, Paris, p. 61-64.
6
4
The governing bodies of the Dutch regional water
authorities include representatives of local residents,
farmers, businesses and nature land managers,
whereby local residents, who indeed make the greatest
contribution to the regional water authorities charges,
always constitute the majority.
•
30
a considerable risk to which the water
managers must be particularly alert.
A system of benchmarking or mutual
comparison could also play a useful role
in this respect, by revealing any major
discrepancies in cost levels. Furthermore,
particularly if the benchmarking leads to
bench learning, it can result in making
improvements in performance.
When these five basic principles are
complied with, the administrative
organization of water management will
be powerful enough to meet the many
challenges we are facing nowadays. In
the forthcoming OECD principles on good
water governance (see chapter 1) the
importance of a powerful administrative
organisation is also stressed. The
following elements can be mentioned:
a clear allocation of (public) roles and
responsibilities, managing water at the
appropriate scale(s) within integrated
basin governance systems, adapting the
level of capacity and allocating financial
resources, implementing and enforcing
sound regulatory frameworks and
promoting stakeholder engagement.
2.4 The OECD report
“Water Governance in
OECD Countries:
A Multi-level Approach”
In the autumn of 2011, the above mentioned
OECD report was published, as already
referred to in chapter 1. This report identifies
a number of gaps that are of huge
importance in respect of the previously
defined basic principles. These gaps are
based on a study into water governance
in 17 OECD countries7, reliant heavily on
information provided by the participating
countries themselves. Specifically on
pages 32 and 60 of the report, the following
seven gaps are identified:
Policy gap: Overlapping, unclear
allocation of roles and responsibilities,
sectoral fragmentation of water-related
tasks across ministries and agencies.
Administrative gap: Geographical
“mismatch” between hydrological and
administrative boundaries, this can be at
the origin of resource and supply gaps.
Information gap: Asymmetries of
information (quantity, quality, type) between
central and sub-national governments,
between different stakeholders involved
in water policy, either voluntary or not.
Australia, Belgium (Flemish and Walloon), Canada,
Chile, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea,
Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain,
United Kingdom (England and Wales) and the United
States (Colorado).
7
•
31
Capacity gap: Lack of technical
capacity, staff, time, knowledge and
infrastructure, insufficient scientific,
technical, infrastructural capacity of local
actors to design and implement water
policies (size and quality of infrastructure,
etc.) as well as relevant strategies.
Funding gap: Unstable or insufficient
revenues undermining effective
implementation of water responsibilities
at sub-national level, cross-sectoral
policies, and investments requested.
Objective gap: Intensive competition
between different ministries, different
rationales creating obstacles for adopting
convergent targets, especially in case
of motivational gap (referring to the
problems reducing the political will to
engage substantially in organizing the
water sector).
Accountability gap: Lack of citizen
concern about water policy and low
involvement of water users’ associations,
difficulty ensuring the transparency of
practices across the different constituencies,
mainly due to insufficient users’
commitment, lack of concern, awareness
and participation.
The participating countries identified the
funding gap and the capacity gap as those
which have the greatest practical influence.
At present, 34 mainly industrialized
countries are affiliated to the OECD.
It goes without saying that many of the
gaps also apply to non-OECD countries.
Upon further examination, it becomes
abundantly clear that these gaps
correspond more or less with the basic
principles outlined above for a solid
management. This comes as no surprise,
since both lists are inextricably linked to
water governance. In respect of the basic
principles, the following points should be
made about the seven gaps.
The policy gap applies to a greater
or lesser extent in practically all the
investigated countries. The OECD points to
the example of the United States, where a
staggering 50,000 agencies and 3,000
county governments are involved in
the elaboration of water policy. Clear
reference is also made to Chile, where
at central government level no less
than 15 ministries are involved in water
policy. This situation imposes extremely
high demands on coordination and
cooperation, and in that connection,
the OECD makes a number of concrete
suggestions. The OECD views the
administrative gap ( the mismatch
between hydrological and administrative
boundaries) as an important challenge
for half of the investigated countries. The
absence of River Basin Authorities results
in practical problems. South Korea in
fact views this gap as its most important
problem. After all, it hinders an integrated
approach and promotes a situation in
which all government stakeholders focus
on their own interests. The information
gap applies to approximately half of the
investigated countries, in particular to
Australia and New Zealand. There is a lack
of good information, generally employed
terms and the sharing of information with
relevant interest groups. The capacity gap
applies to many of the investigated
•
32
countries, more specifically at sub-national
level. The absence of a well-trained
and well-equipped administrative service
and outdated infrastructure represents a
serious threat to sound water management.
The funding gap affects two-thirds of the
countries, as a consequence of which there
is insufficient funding for the necessary
measures. This gap is above all felt at
sub-national level. All too often, local and
regional organizations are too dependent
on central governments which
themselves are also having to cut back
on their expenditure. The objective gap
is perceived clearly less often, affecting
just four of the investigated countries.
Nonetheless, everyone understands what
the objective gap means.
Specific water-related interests often lose
out in respect of spatial and economic
interests, while water pricing systems are
difficult to establish due to the desire
to take into account social and financial
objectives, and the specific wishes of
individual sectors (for example
agriculture). The transparency and
accountability gap, finally, is clearly noted
in half of the investigated countries,
above all in the form of limited public
involvement in water management, and
limited involvement of interest groups in
decision making processes. This situation
can be much improved through better
monitoring, reporting and evaluation.
In its report, the OECD offers specific
suggestions for closing these gaps.
The multilevel problems call for a
differentiated approach, whereby a
range of instruments could be deployed.
The Multilevel Governance Framework
presented by the OECD contains the
following concrete guidelines that relate
to the seven gaps (see pages 22-23 and
113-115 of the report):
1
Diagnose multi-level governance gaps
in water policy making across ministries
and public agencies, between levels
of government and across sub-national
actors. This will help clearly define roles
and responsibilities of public authorities.
2
Involve sub-national governments in designing water policy, beyond their
roles as “implementers”, and allocate
human and financial resources in line
with responsibilities of authorities.
3
Adopt horizontal governance tools to
foster coherence across water-related
policy areas and enhance interinstitutional co-operation across
ministries and public agencies.
4Create, update and harmonise water
information systems and databases
for sharing water policy needs at basin,
country and international levels.
5
Encourage performance measurement
to evaluate and monitor the outcomes
of water policies at all levels of
government, and provide incentives for
capacity building.
•
33
6
Respond to the fragmentation of
water policy at the sub-national level
by encouraging co-ordination across
sub-national actors.
7
Foster capacity-building at all levels
of government. This implies combining
investment in physical water and
sanitation, or “hard” infrastructure,
and providing “soft” infrastructure, i.e.
mainly the institutions upon which water
outcomes rely and their ability to fulfil
duties in an effective and coordinated
way.
8
Encourage a more open and inclusive
approach to water policy making through
public participation in water policy
design and implementation.
9
Assess the adequacy of existing
governance instruments for addressing
identified challenges and fostering
co-ordination of water policy at
horizontal and vertical levels.
2.5 The necessity for
cooperation within
and outside water
management
If the OECD report has demonstrated one
thing, it is that cooperation inside and
outside water management is absolutely
essential. It goes without saying that
coordination and cooperation are also key
elements of its forthcoming principles on
good water governance (see chapter 1 and
especially the principles 2 and 3).
There are two main reasons for this
need. Firstly, in many countries water
management (the water system and the
water chain) is allocated in administrative
terms to different levels of government.
Take the case of the Netherlands, where
central government manages the
hydrological main system, the regional
water authorities are responsible for the
regional water system and the waste
water treatment, the drinking water
companies organize public drinking
water supply, and the municipalities
have a duty of care for waste water
collection (sewerage systems) and for
excess rainwater and urban groundwater
levels. All those individual tasks
create a web of mutual relationships.
Secondly, the various components of
water management share extensive
relationships with other policy areas. The
most obvious is perhaps the relationship
between water management and spatial
planning, but there are also strong
relationships with agriculture, food supply,
energy supply, public health, shipping,
nature and the environment, recreation,
fishery, economic development and even
then, the list is probably not complete.
This applies all the more since the solution
to a number of water problems will often
have to be sought in those other policy
areas (for example agriculture and energy
supply). The administrative organization
in each country is unique to that country,
but one common characteristic is that
generally speaking, these tasks - just like
water management itself - are allocated
to a range of public (and sometimes
private) organizations. In all cases, central
government plays a role, with subordinate
roles for players at regional, provincial
and municipal level, and for functional
organizations, etc.
•
34
These relationships of interests on the
one hand and the shared division of
administrative tasks on the other make
one thing clear: the water managers
(whoever they may be) will first have to
come into contact with one another, to
harmonize and coordinate the execution
of their tasks, and cooperate with one
another. In some countries where the
different water managers even hardly
know each other (see the OECD reports
on Mexico and Brazil) this is still a great
problem. The various water managers can
support each other through the exchange
of best practices. Secondly, in exercising
their tasks, they will have to collaborate
with the public (or private) organizations
responsible for the other related interests.
After all, water management cannot stand
alone; it is indeed specifically intended
to allow justice to be done to the other
policy fields or interests. Take for example
water level management, whereby
the actual water level is alternately
determined by the agriculture or nature
function of the land. It is abundantly clear
that careful harmonization and cooperation
can also result in cost savings.
The Netherlands is fortunate in having a
tradition of a relatively positive approach
to cooperation. For example, following
the introduction of Pollution of Surface
Waters Act in 1970, the water managers
together with the private sector undertook
sector-specific studies and drew up model
discharge permits. The various water
managers have also long been working
together and consulting with one another
on the measures to be taken. The planning
system for water management – as
considered in chapter 4 – represents an
excellent reference point in that connection.
Indeed, harmonization between regional
water authorities and municipalities
is laid down in law, in the Water Act.
The practice of water management
offers numerous specific examples of
initiatives for cooperation, from the
Room for the River project through to
joint tax offices. The ultimate example
of cooperation is represented by the
Dutch approach to regularly establishing
common administrative agreements
that apply to all water organizations.
These administrative agreements contain
a series of specific undertakings and
obligations to be tackled in a designated
period. One key objective for these
administrative agreements and certainly
of the Administrative Agreement on Water
entered into by the central government
in 2011 with the provinces, regional water
authorities, municipalities and drinking
water companies, is to improve efficiency
and achieve substantial cost savings in
water management. Over the coming
years, cooperation between regional
water authorities and municipalities in the
waste water chain is set to achieve major
cost savings, rising to € 380 million per
year from 2020 onwards.
As revealed during the sixth World Water
Forum in March 2012 in Marseille, in
many countries, there is as yet no sound
cooperative structure. The government
bodies charged with water-related tasks
have little or no knowledge of one
another’s activities and coordination
and cooperation with other relevant
government sectors still leave a great deal
to be desired. In the regularly referred to
OECD report published in autumn 2011,
•
35
it is not without reason that the necessity of
sound horizontal and vertical coordination
is underlined. Although the report does
outline a number of possibilities for bringing
about the necessary coordination and
cooperation, the Dutch approach via joint
administrative agreements for the time
being still appears unique. The European
approach via treaties governing the Rhine,
Meuse and Scheldt rivers also still remains
new for many other countries. If we
consider that worldwide, there are some
275 international catchment areas (water
systems take no account of national
boundaries), then this European approach
is extremely interesting. This applies all
the more if we consider that the growing
water-related problems (restricted access
to safe drinking water, poor sanitation,
flooding, drought, poor water quality)
as a consequence rapidly take on an
international dimension. The dams that
countries upstream wish to build for the
purposes of energy supply, water safety
or irrigation can present countries further
downstream with huge, sometimes
insoluble problems. Examples of such
difficulties are unfortunately all too
common.8 The ‘water wars’ predicted
in the past have as yet fortunately not
broken out, but as a result of climate
change, sea level rise, land subsidence,
population growth and urbanization, the
problems are only set to grow, rather than
shrink. As a consequence, national and
international cooperation will be required.
It is therefore of vital importance that the
See L. Schelwald-Van der Kley and L. Reijerkerk,
Water: a way of life. Sustainable water management in
a cultural context, Taylor & Francis Group, London UK
2009, p. 71-84.
8
UN Water Course Convention, drawn up
in 1997 after thirty years preparation, has
(finally) come into force in August 2014.
In chapter 7 the importance of cooperation
is elaborated in greater detail.
2.6 Conclusions
This chapter has considered the
management. It has been shown that a
powerful administrative organization is
the first precondition for sound water
management. Reference was made to
the authoritative OECD study, which in
essence contains exactly that message.
The importance of (inter)national
cooperation inside and outside water
management was also emphasized.
By way of summary, five basic principles
for a sound administrative organization
for water management can be identified:
• a clear allocation of water-related tasks;
• sufficient administrative organizational scale;
• a number of suitable (legal) administrative powers;
• an adequate system of funding;
• transparency, participation and accountability.
In the subsequent chapters, the
importance of sound legislation, planning,
adequate funding, participation and
cooperation are considered in greater
detail.
•
36
3 A legallyembedded
system of
water
management
Author: Bart Teeuwen
•
37
•
38
3.1 Introduction
The administrative organization of water
management as discussed in the previous
chapter is an important aspect of water
governance. To be able to execute their
water-related tasks, the duly appointed
government bodies must have access to
adequate legal and financial instruments.
The principle of the rule of law means
that in applying those instruments,
water managers must act according to
the principles of sound administration,
in order to ensure a balance between
promoting the public interest on the
one hand, and taking account of the
special individual interests of citizens,
farmers and businesses on the other.
Also vital in that framework is a system of
public consultation and legal protection.
Furthermore, any damages suffered,
depending on the nature of the decision
that brings about those damages, must be
eligible for full or partial compensation.
Compliance and enforcement are other
important elements. All these principles
of water management based on the idea
of a state under the rule of law must
be thoroughly legally embedded. A
legally-embedded system of water law is
therefore one of the five building blocks
for sound water governance.
At the same time, the principles based
on the concept of integrated water
management (centred on a river basin
and integrated approach) must also be
legally embedded. In the Netherlands,
this concept was in fact introduced at
policy level as long ago as 1985, and
has subsequently been implemented
in stages in water legislation. With the
establishment of the Water Act in 2009,
this process for the time being reached its
culmination.
The concept of integrated water resources
management (IWRM) has been developed
worldwide, starting with the acceptance
of the so-called “Dublin principles” at the
world summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992
(Agenda 21).1 The IWRM principles have
become a driving force in many countries
(above all developing countries) for
modernizing their water legislation.
This chapter has the following structure.
Firstly, I briefly explain the principles
of IWRM in section 3.2. Against that
background, I then provide an outline
picture of the current state of affairs
concerning the implementation of the
IWRM concept in water legislation in the
Netherlands (section 3.3), the Member
States of the European Union (section 3.4)
and developing countries with a specific
focus on South Asia and South East Asia
(section 3.5), respectively. In conclusion,
in section 3.6, I summarize the identified
trends in the water legislation of the
outlined countries.
Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable
Development.
1
•
39
3.2The IWRM principles
The term integrated water resources
management, which is commonly used
in the Netherlands, was in fact developed
as far back as 1985, with the publication
of the policy document “Omgaan met
water” (Living with Water). This document
is discussed in the next section. IWRM is
an ecologically-oriented concept that in
terms of content ties in with the Dublin
Statement adopted in 1992, and the IWRM
principles accepted at the world summit
in Rio de Janeiro, in that same year. The
Dublin Statement was the outcome of an
international conference held in Dublin
in January 1992 for water experts who
came together to discuss water and the
environment. The Statement formulated
recommendations for action at local,
national and international levels aimed
at reducing the ever rising scarcity of
water as a consequence of conflicting and
excessive consumption. In that process,
four guiding principles were elaborated.
The first principle states: fresh water is a
finite and vulnerable resource, essential
to sustain life, development and the
environment. The second principle states:
water development and management
should be based on a participatory
approach, involving users, planners
and policy-makers at all levels. The third
principle states: women play a central
part in the provision, management and
safeguarding of water. The fourth principle
reads: water has an economic value in all
its competing uses, and should therefore
be recognized as an economic good.
These four principles recur in the IWRM
principles (Agenda 21) adopted at the
world summit in Rio de Janeiro.
‘The widespread scarcity, gradual
destruction and aggravated
pollution of freshwater resources
in many world regions, along with
the progressive encroachment of
incompatible activities, demand
integrated water resources
planning and management. Such
integration must cover all types
of interrelated freshwater bodies,
including both surface water and
groundwater, and duly consider
water quantity and quality aspects.
The multi sectoral nature of
water resources development in
the context of socioeconomic
development must be recognized,
as well as the multi-interest
utilization of water resources
for water supply and sanitation,
agriculture, industry, urban
development, hydropower generation,
inland fisheries, transportation,
recreation, low and flatlands
management and other activities.
Rational water utilization schemes
for the development of surface
and underwater supply sources
and other potential sources have
to be supported by concurrent
waste conservation and wastage
minimization measures.’
Source: Chapter 18 Agenda 21
The formulation of the IWRM principles
referred to here led to a worldwide stream
of publications, the purpose of which was
to interpret, further elaborate on and
discuss those principles. One shining
example of the last of these aspects relates
•
40
to the question how the recognition of
water as an economic good relates to
the recognition (itself also laid down in
international conventions) of the right to
water as a universal human right.
This question has become an urgent point
for discussion above all in countries with
structural or periodic water shortages,
and is also visible in the way in which
form and content have been allocated
to this issue in water legislation in those
countries.This is not the forum in which
to introduce a substantive discussion of
this and other questions about the IWRM
principles. The essential point is that these
principles currently enjoy broad support
worldwide, and as a consequence have
become contributory guiding factors
in the renewal of water legislation in
numerous countries.
In drawing this paragraph to a conclusion,
it is valuable to point out that the IWRM
principles are also adopted in a number of
other international conventions and treaties,
and must be implemented in national
legislation. Take for example the 1997
United Nations Convention of the law of
the Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses,2 the 1992 European Helsinki
Convention on the management of trans
boundary watercourses, and the Treaties
concerning the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt
rivers, to which treaties the Netherlands
is a party.
3.3Water legislation
in the Netherlands
The concept of IWRM was launched in the
Netherlands in 1985, with the publication of
the policy document “Omgaan met Water”
(Living with Water).3 The core of the vision
on water management presented in that
document is the water system approach.
The initial steps towards such an approach
had already been taken in practice in the
major hydraulic engineering interventions
in the country’s south-western delta. The
vision revealed in the document was
an ecologically-oriented policy concept
that required further elaboration in
policy and legislation over the following
years. The policy-based elaboration was
achieved in the third National Water
Policy Document published in 1989.
The first legal elaboration of the policy
also took form in that same year, in the
Water Management Act.4 The planning
arrangement contained in that act bore
an integrated character and included all
aspects of water management (surface
water and groundwater, both quantitative
and qualitative). This represented the first
important step on the road to the intended
step-by-step expansion of the Act into what
would eventually be a general Water Act.
Parliamentary Proceedings II (Kamerstukken II) 1984-1985,
18739, no. 3.
The Water Management Act (Netherlands Government
Gazette 1989, no. 285) had a twofold objective. The Act on
the one hand contained rules for planning and on the other
rules for the operational quantity management of surface
water. The latter issue had until that time only been
organised at regional level in (autonomous) regulations
from provinces and regional water authorities. As this
subject was regulated in the Act, a number of aspects of
water quantity management (such as the permit and water
level decree) were at last regulated in a uniform manner,
on a national scale.
3
4
This worldwide convention is now in force since August
2014.
2
•
41
This general act would eventually
encompass all existing acts governing
the various components of water
management. The roadmap for this
programme was laid down in the third
National Water Policy Document already
referred to. It was at the time recognized
that this was indeed an ambitious
challenge. With that in mind, a pragmatic
approach was taken, whereby any
bottlenecks that required urgent solutions
from the point of view of integrated water
management would be tackled by making
improvements to existing legislation.
In this period, however, the result was
not a step-by-step expansion of the Water
Management Act into a general Water Act.
During the 1990s, the country was not
ready for such a development. Instead,
the approach taken was purely pragmatic.
This pragmatism applied not only to
water legislation in the strictest sense
(the Water Management Act for operational
surface water quantity management,
the Pollution of Surface Waters Act and
the Groundwater Act) but also to legislation
relating to the water infrastructure.
This last category of water legislation in
fact underwent the most remarkable
development towards innovation, in that
period, as described below.
The legislation in respect of water
infrastructure does not only concern
the infrastructure that carries water,
but also the infrastructure that retains
it. Both types of legislation were highly
fragmented and often fully decentralized.
With the introduction of the Flood Defence
Act in 1996, an important milestone in
the organization of responsibility for
flood defence was achieved, in the sense
that uniform, nationally-applicable rules
were laid down for a number of key
elements in the field of responsibility for
flood defence. Also during the 1990s, the
water infrastructure legislation itself was
fundamentally renewed, in several stages,
and brought into line with the striving
for modernization, harmonization and
integration. Broadly speaking, this process
involved two acts initially introduced
around 1900, dealing with State managed
infrastructure. These were the Act of
28 February 1891 on the establishment
of provisions for State managed
infrastructure (Act of 1891) together with
the government regulations based on that
act for the various types of infrastructure,
and the Rivers Act 1908.5 The first step
was taken in 1991 with the broadening of
the scope of the interest framework of the
Act of 1891. From that time onwards, other
interests than those of a strictly hydraulic
engineering nature could be considered
in the process of awarding licenses.
The second step took place in 1996.
The Act of 1891 and all the implementation
regulations based on that act (such as the
Dredging Regulation and the Regulation
of National River Dykes) were then
replaced by an entirely new concise act
with a single, integrated licencing system
for all types of activities: the Public
Works Management Act. This brought to
an end the previously existing system
of detailed licencing systems contained
in individual sets of regulations for the
5
The Act of 1891 lays down rules for the protection and
efficient use of infrastructures managed by the central
government. The Rivers Act of 1908 has the same objective,
but contains specific rules for the (large) rivers.
The Rivers Act should therefore be viewed as a lex
specialis of the 1891 Act.
•
42
various categories of structures. A truly
remarkable deregulation operation.
The final step was taken in 1999 with the
incorporation of the issues dealt with in
the Rivers Act 1908 in the Public Works
Management Act.
Although the legislative operations
described here very briefly represent
important steps forward in terms of
modernization, water legislation as a
whole still remained highly fragmented.
The true impulse towards the integration
of existing water acts in a single act came
with the European Water Framework
Directive of 2000. Following the
establishment of an Outline Memorandum
in 2004, the bill for the Water Act was
submitted to Parliament in 2006. This
eventually resulted in the Water Act 2009,
which brought together practically all
previously existing water acts.6 See the
overview in the framework below.
Overview of acts brought together
in the Water Act 2009
•The Water Administration Act1900 (sections related to water ways)
•The Land Reclamation Act 1904
•The Pollution of Surface Waters Act 1970
•The Marine Pollution Act 1975
•The Groundwater Act 1981
•The Soil Protection Act 1986
(the waterbed section)
•The Water Management Act 1989
•The Flood Defence Act 1996
•The Public Works Management Act 1999
The Water Act is an important milestone
in the striving towards expressing the
concept of integrated water resources
management in the water legislation.7
The first step in this direction was taken
in 1989 with the integrated regulation of
the planning processes for all elements of
water management. With the introduction
of the new Water Act in 2009, the same
level of integration has been achieved
as regards the implementation and
enforcement instruments. In other words,
there is now a single law, a single plan, a
single water licence, and a single judicial
appeal process. This advance represents
a considerable achievement not only
in terms of content but also from the
point of view of legislative technique.
The Water Decree based on the Water
Act (an implementing government
regulation) and the Ministerial Water
Regulation based in turn on that Decree
are also integrated in their character. In
addition, thanks to joint efforts on the
part of central government (the Ministry
of Infrastructure and the Environment),
the Provinces (in the Association of the
Provinces of the Netherlands – IPO)
and the regional water authorities (the
Association of Regional Water Authorities)
both implementation schemes and the
necessary alterations to the Provincial and
Water Board Regulations became effective
at the same time as the Water Act. This
fact too is worthy of mention. After all, in
the past, the effective introduction of an
For an instructive discussion of the Water Act, see the
book by Marleen van Rijswick and Herman Havekes:
European and Dutch Water Law; Europa Law Publishing,
Groningen 2012. See also my book review in the Dutch
magazine for Water Governance, volume 4/2012,
pages 48-49.
7
The Wrecks Act and the Earth Removal Act are not
included in the Water Act.
6
•
43
act was only actually achieved in practice
years later, due to the delay in the making
of the necessary implementation rules.
At the end of this overview, it should be
noted that the Water Act does not in fact
offer an all-encompassing integrated
character. The issues relating to drinking
water supply are not included in the act.
That particular subject was dealt with in a
separate, also entirely renewed Drinking
Water Act in 2009. That act replaces the
old Water Supply Act dating back to 1957.
The settlement of the position and function
of the regional water authorities as
decentralized water managers is also the
subject of a separate (even organic) act:
the Regional Water Authorities Act of 1992.
The introduction of the new Water Act
represents for the time being the
culmination of the efforts to integrate
water legislation. Although in this act the
relationship with adjoining policy areas
such as the environment and spatial
planning has been given a prominent
position, in this respect, too, there is
room for further integration. The next
step is already on the horizon, namely the
integration of the Environmental Act, The
Water Act and the Spatial Management
Act into a single integrated broader- based
Environmental Management Act. This
intention was announced to Parliament
by the government, in March 2012. A Bill
was sent to the Parliament in 2014 and
passed the Lower Chamber in 2015. After
the finalizing of the four implementing
government regulations (a complicate and
labour intensive project) the new act will
become effective in 2018.
in EU Member States
The EU Water Framework Directive of
2000 (WFD) was not only a major boost
for the further integration of water
legislation in the Netherlands. For the
other EU Member States, it was equally
influential. What has been the result
of the legislative efforts in the various
Member States, and what similarities
and differences can be identified?
Producing a balanced and reliable picture
would require access to an extensive
comparative law study. Naturally, that
is not possible in the framework of this
publication, so instead we must rely on
studies of that kind already undertaken.
The desktop study undertaken in 2004
by Twynstra Gudde and Royal Haskoning
comes closest.8 The then Ministry of
Transport, Public Works and Water
Management had ordered the study in
the framework of the start of preparations
for the new Water Act. The purpose of
the study was to gain an insight into
legislative developments in the surrounding
EU Member States and other countries
possibly relevant for the Netherlands,
and to draw any lessons from those
developments that could be used in
preparing the new Water Act.
The results of the study were recorded in the report
published in November 2004: Legislative response to
water management challenges; lessons from other
countries. In this study, the legislation in 22 countries
was screened via a quick scan. Of those 22, 15 countries
were described further on the basis of case studies, and
5 countries were studied in detail.
8
•
44
The EU Member States9 investigated in
the study share the common fact that
just like the Netherlands, they are already
well on the road to integrating their water
legislation, and that the WFD served as an
additional boost in that process. Although
we are now eleven years further, and the
state of the art of water legislation in the
investigated countries as revealed in the
study has partly been overtaken by new
developments, the study does provide a
fair picture of the developments in
the striving to integrate water acts.
The following trends have been identified
as emerging from the study.
For all the investigated countries, the
implementation of the WFD served as a
powerful boost to their own national
legislation in accelerating the process
of integration.
A second trend concerns the inclusion
of principles of water law (anchored in
international conventions) such as the
polluter pays principle, the user pays
principle, the standstill principle, the cost
recovery principle and the precautionary
principle. Many countries indeed explicitly
refer to these principles in their legislation.
Dutch water legislation does not share
this tradition, even though these principles
have been accepted and are employed in
the practice of water management.
Even in the Water Act 2009, these principles
were eventually not explicitly included.
9
Among others Belgium (Flanders), Germany, France,
Italy, England and Sweden. The EU was expanded in 2005
to take in a number of Eastern European countries.
Naturally, these countries were not covered in the study.
Water legislation in these countries is still under development. However, this process must be accelerated
with a view to the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive.
Taking all issues into consideration, the
lawmakers judged this was not necessary,
since it would anyway have only a purely
symbolic value.
A third trend concerns the degree of
integration in water legislation. The
majority of countries place the key
aspects of water management in a single
Water Act. In relation to certain aspects,
however, there are still remarkable
differences. For example in some
countries, the water quality aspect is
not included in the water acts, but in
environmental legislation. In the majority
of countries, the water chain aspect
(drinking water supply and sanitation)
is not or only partially included in the
water legislation, and instead is regulated
in separate legislation. It was already
indicated in section 3.3 that the aspect of
drinking water supply is also regulated
in a separate act in the Netherlands. In
Sweden and France, the issue of water
resources management in its entirety was
placed in a broader-based environmental
act. In Sweden, this integration was
achieved in 1999 and in France in 2006. All
aspects of water resources management
have been placed in book II, Title I of
the Code de l’Environnement, in the
framework of the establishment of the Loi
de l’Eau et les Milieux Aquatiques.
A fourth and final trend concerns the
structure of water acts. In practically
all cases, the structure is different, but
there are similarities. The majority of
water acts, for example, start with a
preamble formulating the principles of
water law and the objectives of the act.
The settlement of planning is generally
•
45
also laid down in an identical chapter.
Finally, in all countries, the concluding
chapters are dedicated to such subjects
as monitoring, supervision and sanctions.
In all other respects, the structure of the
acts differs considerably. Indeed, the
WFD had no intention of promoting a
single, uniform structure. The Directive
merely lays down what needs to happen,
and not how the Member States should
implement those activities in their national
legislation. The Member States are indeed
entirely free in making their choices. The
structure of the Dutch Water Act of 2009
is characterized by simplicity and logic.
Partly as a consequence (but of course
primarily because of the way in which
the act has been structured in terms of
content) the Water Act is also transparent
and easily readable for non-lawyers.
in developing countries
Case South Asia and South
East Asia
Introduction
The IWRM principles agreed at the world
summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 served
as a stimulus for developing countries
to modernize their water acts in line with
these principles. However, for practically
all of those countries, this was not the
primary driving force. The real driving
force was the reform of the institutional
structure. In many developing countries,
a water sector reform was initiated at the
end of the 1990s, characterized by a shift
from an authoritarian, centralistic state
system to a democratic, decentralized
system with more attention for the
involvement of the public in all phases
of the decision-making process on water
issues (participative approach. See also
chapter 6 of this book).
There is no up-to-date worldwide
comparative law study into the way
in which developing countries have
modernized their water legislation in
accordance with the IWRM principles.
The report “Water Governance in OECD
Countries. A multi-level approach”,
published in September 2011 also offers
insufficient material for gaining a clear
picture of the current state of affairs.10
10
The report appeared as part of the OECD series of Studies
on Water.
•
46
The report is above all aimed at charting out
the institutional aspects of water
governance. As a consequence, the report
does receive a great deal of attention in
particularly chapter 2 of this book. Against
that background, the best approach in this
section is a case study approach.
The developments in water legislation
in a number of countries of South Asia
and South East Asia will be sketched out,
in outline. The choice of this region has
been made for pragmatic reasons.
I was involved in the modernization of
Indonesian water legislation as a legislative
advisor in the period 2002 through to
2010. From 2002-2005 it took place under
the umbrella of a Netherlands-Indonesia
cooperation agreement and from 20062011 under the umbrella of a World Bank
Fund. Since 2013 the scope of these
activities was extended to some other
Asian countries under the ADB funded
project “Supporting National Legislation
in South Asia and South East Asia”.11
The countries concerned are: Bhutan,
Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka,
and Vietnam. These countries share with
Indonesia the fact that they are also in
a phase of institutional transition and of
implementation of the IWRM-concept.
The starting point for this extension was a presentation
I gave about the importance of a good legal framework
for water resources management during the 1st Asia Netherlands Water Learning Week held in the Netherlands
at the end of October 2012. The learning week took place
under the auspices of the Asian Development Bank (ADB)
and the Unesco-IHE Institute for Water Education.
Delegations from 11 countries participated in the Water
Learning Week: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Japan,
India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, South Korea,
Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. The project is carried out by
a project team, existing of the author and Zaki Shubber,
lecturer in Law and Water Diplomacy at UNESCO-IHE in
Delft.
11
One final reason for having selected
South Asia and South East Asia as the point
of focus for the case study is the growing
interest of the Dutch water sector in this
region of the world.
The countries mentioned above are in
different stages of the modernization
of their water legislation. Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Indonesia, and Vietnam have
in common that they have already
enacted new water acts and one or more
underlying implementing government
regulations (except Bangladesh).
The countries Myanmar, Nepal and Sri
Lanka have in common that they are still
in a starting phase of the modernization
of the water legislation.
The limited number of pages for this
chapter makes it impossible to outline
and discuss all the mentioned countries in
the same manner. For pragmatic reasons
the focus will be on the water legislation
developments of the countries Indonesia
and Vietnam. The other countries will be
reluctantly dealt with much shorter.
•
47
South East Asia
EAST CHINA SEA
CHINA
PHILIPPINE SEA
INDIA
Hanoi
BAY OF
BENEGAL
MYANMAR
Rangoon
LAOS
PHILIPPINES
VIETNAM
THAILAND
Bangkok
ANDAMAN SEA
Manilla
Vientiana
CAMBODIA
SOUTH CHINA
SEA
GULF Phnom Penh
OF
BRUNEI
THAILAND
MALAYSIA
Kuala Lumpur
Bandar Seri
Begawan
INDIAN OCEAN
INDONESIA
Jakarta
•
48
Outline and comments regarding
the water legislation of
Indonesia and Vietnam
Indonesia
After the fall of the Suharto government in
1998, a process of far-reaching institutional
reform has been taking place. The main
characteristic of that process is a shift from
an authoritarian, centralized state system to
a democratic, decentralized administrative
structure with far more attention for public
participation in all phases of government
decision making. The relevant legal
framework comprises the decentralization
acts established in 1999 and introduced in
2001. This legislation has provided for the
allocation of far-reaching administrative
authorities as well as the accompanying
financial authorities to districts and
municipalities.12 Parallel to and in line with
general institutional reform, a start was
made on reforming the water sector,
including modernization of water
legislation. The result of the legislative
process was the Water Resources Act of
2004 (Act 7/2004 or the Act). The Act fully
replaced the existing Water Resources
Management Act of 1974 (Act 11/1974)
which still had a strong sectoral nature.
12
In the 1999 decentralisation legislation, far-reaching
autonomous tasks and the accompanying financial
support were allocated to the districts. (Act 22/1999).
In 2004, this legislation was amended, and the position
of the State and of the provinces has been somewhat
strengthened. (Act 32/2004). In 2014 the decentralisation
legislation is against revised with the goal to further
strengthen the position of the provincial Governor as the
representative of the central government. (Act 23/2014).
The new act only regulates the elements
of which it is made up in outline, and as
such it is a so-called umbrella act. Further
elaboration must take place in the form
of implementing government regulations
and (more technically-oriented) ministerial
regulations based on the latter. End of
2014 almost all of the in total 11 planned
government regulations were in force.
See the figure.
In force
•GR 16/2005 - Water Supply & Sanitation
•GR 20/2006 - Irrigation
•GR 42/2008 - Water Resources
Management
•GR 43/2008 - Groundwater
Management
•GR 37/2010 - Dam/Reservoir
•GR 38/2011 - River
•GR 98/2014 - Lake
•GR 73/2013 - Water Resources Lowland
Management
•GR 69/2014 - Water Use Rights
In drafting
•GR on Water Quality & Pollution
Control
•GR on Beneficial Water Use
The following observations can be made
on the new Indonesian water legislation.13
Firstly and foremost, the new Act
represents a huge step forwards in the
implementation of IWRM principles
13
A first review report about the new water legislation
of Indonesia was made by the author in 2011. The report
“Review Technical assistance modernization Indonesian
water legislation” can be downloaded via the website
of the Water Governance Centre. An article accessible
to a broad target group about the report was published in
the magazine for Water Governance, volume 2011, issue 3,
pages 33-39.
•
49
in national legislation. The old Water
Act 11/1974 did enjoy a broad scope,
in formal terms, but was effectively a
sector-oriented irrigation act with an
emphasis on the construction of irrigation
systems and dams (with their resultant
reservoirs) for the supply of water to the
irrigation systems. The act also lacked a
structural, planning approach, as well as
a participative approach. The scope of the
new Act is integrated and as such geared
towards all types of water resources
including river basins, aquifers, irrigation
systems, lowlands, dams and drinking
water and sanitation systems. The act is
also no longer focused exclusively on
infrastructure (the construction of major
hydraulic engineering works). It is a real
management act, in which development
(construction, including rehabilitation)
and operation and maintenance have all
been given an equivalent role. The Act
also tackles such other important aspects
of IWRM as planning (integrated for all
aspects of water management), license
requirements for interventions in the
water system and for the use of water,
public consultation, enforcement and
legal protection.
Secondly, the Act is a framework act.
In other words, the Act regulates the
majority of issues purely in broad terms.
This is a common approach worldwide to
complex areas of legislation. The specific
legal standard-setting elaboration of each
of those issues must be implemented in
government regulations (and underlying
ministerial regulations). For all types of
water resources, separate government
regulations have been drawn up (see the
figure above on page 48). The integrated
approach in the Act has in other words not
been continued in the process of further
elaboration in regulations. Effectively,
the tried and trusted sectoral approach
has been chosen, leading to considerable
overlapping and unnecessary duplication.
This is unfortunate because as a result,
mutual harmonization between the various
regulations is limited and as a consequence
will prove confusing in practice.
Harmonization of the various regulations
will be an unavoidable next step in the
process of further improving the water
legislation.
A third comment relates to the length of
time needed for drawing up the
government regulations. Effective,
integrated introduction of the Act took
place in phases over a period of at least
10 years, this in shrill contrast to the new
Dutch Water Act, for example.
One consequence of this ‘time lag’ in the
regulations is for example that clarity on
the content of the right to water for basic
daily needs, as laid down in the Act, took
10 years.
Another point is the structure of the act.
Three subjects dealt with in separate
chapters form the pillars around which
other chapters are more or less grouped.
The pillars are conservation, utilization,
and control of water damaging power.
All government regulations have been
consistently organized according to this
structure. There is much to say in favour of
the system adopted, but its elaboration in
the regulations has proved anything but
simple. Overlaps are common, making the
regulations difficult to read.
•
50
A fifth area of attention relates to the
regulation of planning. Although the
approach to planning is integrated in
terms of ensuring close mutual coherence
within water management, the same
does not apply to coordination with
spatial planning. This aspect is dealt with
only very briefly in the Act, and is not
fully elaborated in the (more generic)
GR on WRM 2008. Many water projects
have major spatial consequences
and in the same way, many spatial
interventions initiated by other policy
sectors have major consequences for
water management. An explicit, binding
set of rules for harmonization between
the two forms of planning is of crucial
importance.14 (See also chapter 4 of this
book).
Finally and unfortunately, the Act has
been annulled by the Constitutional
Court in a decision of 18 February 2015.
The key element of the decision was that
various provisions in the Act created too
much involvement of the private sector
and that is in conflict with Article 33 of
the Constitution that stipulates that water
resources are under the control of the
State. To prevent a regulatory vacuum
the Court decided that the old Water Act
11/1974 will be reinstalled during the
transitional period to a new act which
observes the decision of the Court by the
lawmakers.
14
In respect of the weak position of spatial planning in
Indonesia, see my book review of the dissertation from
Tristam Pascal Moeliono published in December 2011:
Spatial management in Indonesia: from planning to
implementation. This book review appeared in the Dutch
Tijdschrift voor Omgevingsrecht, 2012/4, pages 128-131.
The Government immediately started a
task force to solve this unexpected and
far reaching decision of the Court. As
a temporary solution all government
regulations have been quickly replaced by
regulations based on the old Act 11/1974.
As a structural solution a new act is being
drafted. The intention is to promulgate
the new act mid-2016.15
Vietnam
Vietnam is a socialist people’s republic
in which the State traditionally occupies
a strong position, and with a related
centrally-planned economy. The country
shares with Indonesia the fact that the
process of institutional reform was the
driving force for the modernization of the
water legislation. That process of reform
was initiated in 1992 in the framework
of a major revision of the country’s
Constitution. In that process, a process
of renewal (doi moi) aimed at economic
growth, and launched in 1986, was
anchored in the Constitution.
That same Constitution also contained
the principle of environmental protection.
This provided an important impulse
towards the thorough review of the
organization and approach to water
15
Of course, a lot could be said here about this decision, but
that is not possible in the context of this overview chapter.
However, one remark needs to be made. A Supreme Court
decision in 2005 (one year after the enacting of the new
WRA 2004) already stated that the Act was “conditionally constitutional” with regard to the addressing of the
private sector involvement. The Court formulated certain
conditions that should be taken into account in the
implementing government regulations. Unfortunately,
that has not been the case. Thus, in my opinion it was not
a surprise that this issue would raise again.
The Government has failed to act sufficiently proactive in
this case.
•
51
management. Under the responsibility
of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MARD) the new Water
Resources Act 1998 (WRA 1998 or the
Act) was enacted. The Act represented
the first step towards the implementation
of IWRM principles. However, for a
number of reasons, that step remained
modest in scope. The most important
limitations of the Act were concerned
with the still central role of the State, the
lack of an integrated approach to river
basin oriented planning, and the still
considerable focus on the development
of water infrastructure projects, aimed at
supporting the policy of economic growth
for the country as a whole. Finally, the
process of establishing implementing
government regulations (and underlying
ministerial regulations) took many years,
and moreover the amount of regulations
was very high, which has proved a major
stumbling block, in practice. In the ten
years since the introduction of the Act,
some 300 regulations/decrees/circulars
have been released, which often overlap
or duplicate one another, and some of
which have in fact been in contravention
of the Act.16 The main complicating factor
in the process of modernization of the
water legislation was the political decision
in 2002 to transfer the responsibility for
water management policy from MARD
For an extensively documented overview of the multitude
of legal implementation documents, see the report by
Nguyen Thi Phuong Laon: Legal framework of the water
resources of Vietnam, Bonn 2010.
16
•
52
to the then new established Ministry
of Natural Resources and Environment
(MONRE). Both ministries were not able
to cooperate in harmony under the new
task division. MONRE started in 2007 a
process to review the WRA 1998 and to
replace that act by an entirely new act.
An important reason was the necessity to
implement more consistently the IWRM
concept in the legal framework of the water
resources. Following heated discussions,
Parliament approved the new Water
Resources Act in June 2012 (WRA 2012 or
the Act). One year later an implementing
government regulation was available. That
regulation (Decree 201/2013)17 addresses
the most important issues (in particularly
the license instrument) that need to be
elaborated in more detail.18
have been grouped. We saw that the same
applies to the Indonesian water legislation.
The following comments can be provided
on the new Vietnamese water legislation.
A first notable feature is that the IWRM
concept is now addressed in all its
dimensions. The development dimension
is no longer dominant. The new Act is a
true management act.
A fourth observation concerns the regulation
of planning. These matters are now
explicitly dealt with in a specific chapter,
in an integrated manner, representing
a major improvement. The relationship
with spatial planning, however, is not
considered; clearly a missed opportunity.
A second comment concerns the structure
of the Act. The structure is at heart the
same as that of its predecessor. It is worth
noting in that respect that the subjects
conservation, utilization and the control
of water damaging power are the central
pillars, around which the other chapters
Also noticeable is the fact that the
arrangement of funding is now placed
in a separate chapter, which helps give
expression to the fact that in addition to
its social function, water specifically also
has an economic function. Water use for
the needs of daily life is free while water
for commercial purposes must be paid
for. This is also a step towards stimulating
the efficient use of water.
Vietnam uses the term “Decree” for an implementing
government regulation.
In the same year a Decree about sanction of administrative
violations was enacted. Decrees regarding corridors for
the protection of water sources and regarding incentives
for efficient water use are still under preparation.
17
18
A third observation relates to the
regulation of the institutional structure.
The relevant chapter is no longer
focused on formulating the tasks and
responsibilities of the State. The tasks and
responsibilities of the provinces, districts
and municipalities are now also explicitly
outlined, including the obligation to report
to central government. In other words,
central government continues to fulfil a
clear guiding role. Furthermore, public
participation in decision making on water
issues is expressly referred to in the Act as
an IWRM principle. These issues are dealt
with in a more general chapter, in which the
principles of water law are also laid down.
A sixth comment relating more to the
technical aspects of law making concerns
the way the Act is written. This above all
•
53
applies to the more operational-oriented
sections on conservation, utilization and
the control of water damaging power.
The regulation of all possible actions
(infrastructural interventions and various
forms of water use) is written down in
detail, and sometimes in a repetitive
manner. This was also the case in the old
act. It is unfortunate that no simplification
process was initiated. In the further process
of improving the quality of legislation,
there is much to be gained in this respect.
A final comment is concerned with the
scope of the Act. The Act focuses on the
management of the use of water for the
different social purposes. Others than
in the WRA 1998 the management of
hydraulic works is no longer addressed
in a specific chapter of the WRA 2012.
However, that does not mean that
hydraulic works do not fall under the
scope of the WRA 2012. The Definition
Article 2 clearly defines water resources
as “the natural or artificial forms of water
accumulation”. The various types of
hydraulic works are mentioned in many
articles of the WRA 2012. It is important
to indicate this, because MARD started in
2012 a legislative project to address the
hydraulic works component in a specific
act. A draft Act on Hydraulic Works was
available in the second half of 2013.
The intention is to finalize the draft Act
in April 2016.19 One can imagine that
it is questionable if the WRA 2012 and
the (draft) Act on Hydraulic Works are
At the request of MARD I have provided some
(by the World Bank funded) technical assistance with
the improvement of the draft act in the period of
May - August 2015.
sufficiently harmonized. It is essential to
do this to avoid competence disputes in
the operational practice.
Other countries in South
Asia and South East Asia
In addition to Indonesia and Vietnam,
other developing countries in South Asia
and South East Asia are also working hard
to modernize their water legislation in line
with IWRM principles. Among these are
the countries that fall under the scope of
the already mentioned ADB funded project
“Supporting National Legislation in South
Asia and South East Asia”.
It concerns the countries Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
Bangladesh and Bhutan have in common
that both countries have already enacted a
new water act. Bhutan has done it in “The
Water Act of Bhutan 2011” and Bangladesh
in “The Bangladesh Water Act 2013”.
Both acts address the relevant IWRM
issues in broad terms. They need further
elaboration in one or more implementing
government regulations. Bhutan has
already done it in one integrated regulation:
The Water Regulation of Bhutan 2014.
Bangladesh is still in the drafting stage.
A draft “Bangladesh Water Rules 2015”
was completed in October 2015, but needs
further improvement.20 Moreover, not all
issues are elaborated in this regulation.
Some issues will be addressed in a separate
regulation. The intension is to enact the
implementing regulation mid-2016.
19
The project team of the ADB funded project has been
invited to assist with the improvement of the draft
regulation.
20
•
54
It should be noted that Bhutan has decided
to put all issues in one integrated
regulation. That is the best guarantee to also
maintain the integrated approach at the
level of government regulations. Bhutan
is the only Asian country to have done so.
It is remarkable and demonstrates vision.21
Finally, the countries Myanmar, Nepal and
Sri Lanka. These countries are still running
with the existing, highly fragmented and
dated water legislation. All three countries
have announced in their national water
policy documents that the modernization
of the water legislation has a high priority.
However, no country already started this
process. The main obstacle in all three
countries is the continuing political
instability. For that reason the ADB funded
technical assistance project with the
modernization of the water legislation
of these countries is until now limited
to fact-finding missions to Myanmar
(in 2013) and Nepal (2015).22 The start
of providing technical assistance with
the drafting of a new water act in these
countries fully depends on the political
developments in these countries.
The expectation is that Nepal will start this
process in 2016. If this will also be the
case in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is unclear.
The ADB funded project team was strongly involved in
the drafting process of the Bhutan Water Regulation 2014.
It was a real pleasure for the project team to work with
such a committed Bhutanese team. Other countries in
the region can learn a lot of the applied project-based
approach.
22
A planned fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka of the ADB
project team has been postponed.
21
3.6Conclusions and
Summary
This chapter has discussed how the
IWRM principles based on the idea of
the state under the rule of law should be
embedded in a coherent legal framework.
I have examined how the IWRM principles
accepted at the 1992 world summit in
Rio de Janeiro have been implemented
in the water acts of the Netherlands, EU
Member States and developing countries
(focusing on the case South Asia and
South East Asia), respectively.
The most important trends identified can
be summarized as follows.
In the Netherlands, the policy concept
of IWRM introduced in 1985 represented
a powerful impulse for modernizing the
highly fragmented existing water acts
in line with this concept. However, this
process required quite some time. The
first step was taken with the integrated
regulation of planning in the Water
Management Act 1989. The second step
was taken in the 1990s, whereby above
all legislation relating to the water
infrastructure underwent a remarkable
process of renewal. With the Water Act
2009, a third important step was taken on
the road towards the harmonization and
integration of the water legislation. This
new Act brings together the operational
and enforcement instruments laid down
in a series of other water acts, within a
single act. One can therefore speak of one
act, one plan, one licence and one process
of appeal to the courts. Not only in terms
of content but also from the point of
view of legislative technique, this is a
considerable achievement.
•
55
For the EU Member States, the WFD
2000 represented a powerful boost in
accelerating the process of integration
of water legislation in accordance also
with the IWRM principles. The water acts
of those countries not only demonstrate
similarities but also in certain areas
remarkable differences. The water quality
aspect, for example, is not included in
the water legislation in some countries,
but is part of environmental legislation.
In the majority of countries, the water
chain aspect (drinking water supply
and sanitation) is not or only partially
embedded in the water legislation,
and is instead regulated in separate
legislation. In a number of countries,
the subject of water management in its
entirety is placed within a broad-based
environmental act. The structure of the
acts also differs considerably. This is
entirely understandable, since the WFD
2000 merely states what has to be done
and not how the Member States should
implement the objectives formulated in
the WFD in their own national legislation.
For the developing countries, the IWRM
principles accepted at the 1992 world
summit in Rio de Janeiro also formed
a stimulus for modernizing their water
legislation in line with these principles.
However, institutional reform was in
many cases the main driving force. Since
no worldwide comparative legislation
study is available, I opted for a case study
approach focusing on the region of South
Asia and South East Asia and within that
region on the countries Indonesia and
Vietnam, and to a lesser extent on the
countries Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar,
Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The development
of the water legislation in these countries
demonstrates remarkable similarities.
In most of them, the institutional reform
process was the driving force for renewal
in water legislation. In developing that
legislation, the IWRM principles were
one of the guiding factors. The countries
Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and
Bhutan have made important steps
forward with the new legislation
introduced, in implementing the IWRM
principles in the national legislation.
However, the elaboration of issues
addressed in broad terms in the act, has
taken place in most countries in various
separate implementation government
regulations. Bhutan is a remarkable
exception. The consequence of various
implementing government regulations
is the risk of overlap and unnecessary
duplication. Harmonization and further
integration are therefore essential future
steps in these countries.
•
56
•
57
4 Planning
Author: Maarten Hofstra
•
58
4.1 Introduction
Planning is a broad-ranging concept.
The core of its definition is a systematic
approach to a specified problem or
specific (groups of) activities.
A structural engineering project, for
example, employs a project plan.
Implementation plans focus above all
on effectiveness and efficiency, in which
the making of choices that affect social
interests is relatively restricted. The key
element in these plans is the effective
and efficient deployment of manpower
and equipment. A maintenance plan
can for example concern the scope of
paintwork to be undertaken, while an
operating plan is often used to determine
who will employ which infrastructural
element at what moment in time, in
which particular manner, with a view to
achieving predetermined objectives. Take
for example the operation of weirs and
pumping stations for managing water
levels. Monitoring plans relate above all
to the systematic acquisition of data for
policy and management. It could in fact
be suggested that practically everything is
based on some sort of plan. A commonly
asked question is: what is your plan. You
could even say that without plans there
can be no results.
However, it is not my intention in this
chapter to consider every conceivable
form of planning; instead, focusing on
the subject of water governance, I will be
emphasizing the question of planning as
a process, and more specifically planning
in which socially-relevant choices are
made and which as a consequence relates
closely to social interests. When it comes
to water resources management, there is
a plethora of interests: safety, dry feet for
living, working and recreation, drinking
water, shipping, agriculture, nature, etc.
In other words, here we will be
considering planning as a policy
instrument in the form of both policy
plans and implementation plans. Policy
plans, such as the National Water Plan or a
provincial water plan, above all define the
objectives and the strategy for achieving
objectives, while implementation plans
represent a further elaboration of policy
plans for specific subject areas (for
example a sewerage plan) or specific
areas (such as a management plan for
State waters or a water management plan
for a regional water authority). One key
element in all such plans is the method
of decision making. It is also abundantly
clear (see also article 14 of the EU
Water Framework Directive (WFD)) that
planning relates closely to the subject of
participation. The relationship between
policy plans and implementation plans
may vary; the space for making choices
in an implementation plan will depend on
the level of detail of the objectives and
the strategic choices in the policy plan.
Such choices are often governed by rules,
such as the regulations in the Water Act in
respect of planning.
In the next sections, an outline will first
be provided of the development of water
management planning in the Netherlands.
This will be followed by a discussion
of international planning, followed by
lessons learned, translated in basics for
planning, and finally some conclusions.
•
59
4.2 Development of water
management planning in
the Netherlands
Planning at national level
In the past, the various elements of water
resources management such as quantity
management for surface water and water
quality management were separate policy
areas. This separation was above all due to
the fact that quantity was mainly an issue
for rural areas, while water quality
problems were concentrated in the urban
environment. Gradually, however, a process
aimed at greater coherence has emerged.
This strengthening of internal coherence in
water resources management was followed
by a strengthening of the coherence
between water resources management on
the one hand, and other policy areas such
as nature policy, environmental policy
and spatial planning, on the other. This
development went more or less hand in
hand with the broadening of the vision
of water resources managers, whereby
in addition to the traditional interests
and sectors such as agriculture, shipping
and safety, attention was gradually also
focused on interests which until that time
had been less closely considered, such
as recreation, nature, and landscape. The
term ‘broad-based vision’ became much
more widely used in the early 1990s. In
the next section, this development is
further examined according to a range of
policy plans in the field of water resources
management and its related policy fields
that were published during the second
half of the 20th century and the first
decade of the 21st century.
National Policy Document on Water
Management
The 1968 National Policy Document on
Water Management can be viewed as
the first national planning in the field
of water resources management in the
Netherlands. While major infrastructural
projects were undertaken in the framework
of the Deltaplan in the South-western
Netherlands and in the framework of
the Zuiderzee projects in the IJssel Lake
area, this policy document was above all
a future vision on the problems of water
supply and water-related nuisance. In
other words, it is not about protecting
the land against flooding, sea and river
water, nor does it discuss water quality,
with the exception of the problems of
salinization. The document suggests that
there is justification in assuming that the
Pollution of Surface Waters Act, at the time
still under discussion in Parliament, would
have the result that:
“ ...it is possible, by the year 2000,
to achieve a situation in which
any pollution still present in a
large part of our country need not
represent any hindrance to the use
of surface water for the majority of
intended purposes.”
This expectation has indeed almost
entirely been fulfilled.1 It is however
clear that in respect of water quality,
consideration is above all given to the
interests of human consumption, while
ecology plays no explicit role.
M.A. Hofstra en J. Leentvaar, De klus geklaard?
In 25 jaar WVO, The Hague, 1995.
1
•
60
In respect of the character of the policy
document, the following should be noted:
“The objective of this document is
to identify the route that will have
to be followed in order to arrive at
a well-functioning water resource
infrastructure in the future” and
“In as much as relating to the
future, the policy document merely
provides vision of a macro structure
for water resources management
for the first few decades. As a
consequence, the cost aspect is
beyond the scope of this document.”
It was therefore a logical consequence
that in the subsequent years, the options
presented in the policy document were
not immediately implemented, but
instead further studies were undertaken.
2nd National Policy Document on
Water Management
The urgent calls to take actual measures
gained ground, following the extreme
drought in the summer of 1976.
Agriculture above all suffered considerable
drought damage and salt damage, but
also other interests such as shipping,
energy production, industry and drinking
water supply experienced the negative
consequences. This situation gave birth
to a broad-based policy analysis study
of water resources management in the
Netherlands (PAWN), which considered
both the hydrological main structure and
the regional water infrastructure, and
was above all focused on water supply
in dry periods. This study, undertaken
by the Rijkswaterstaat, Delft Hydraulics
and the Rand Corporation provided the
first coherent analysis of water supply in
dry periods, whereby the set of models
offered the possibility of considering
both the regional and national system
in conjunction with one another, and
calculating a range of scenarios. The
results of the study formed the basis for
the 2nd National Policy Document on
Water Management (NW2) published in
1984. Although a series of measures for
improvement were formulated, it was
particularly noticeable that the study
created the foundations for the conclusion
that a number of measures that had
previously been identified as possibly
worthwhile could now be characterized
as non-viable, based on policyanalytical arguments. The NW2 therefore
represented the end for large-scale plans
such as the ‘North South link’ and the
‘Second Oostvaardersdijk’ (as a minimum
water resources facility for preventing
salinization of the Markermeer) and the
‘Canalization of the IJssel’. Although the
PAWN study did not entirely ignore issues
of water quality, the main point of focus
in the study and in NW2 was on quantity
management for surface water and
groundwater, and above all the traditional
interests agriculture, industry, shipping
and drinking water supply set the scene.
The fact that more or less simultaneously
with NW2, work was also underway
on the third Indicative Multiannual
Programme for Water (IMP Water) was
clear evidence that water quality was on
an entirely different track.
•
61
pawn system diagram
Legend
category
Data flow
Water
Net rainQuantity, quality and salinity
Environment
External
supply
IJssel lakes
Supply
Demand
Drinking
water
companies
Power
plants
Ground
water
storage
Shipping
Water
distribution
model
Agriculture
Treatment
plants
Rotterdam
salt wedge
Industry
Locks
Worth noting when it comes to
strengthening internal coherence in
water management, is that in the NW2
document, the government came out
clearly in favour of a regional water
management organization as being most
desirable. The following underpinning
arguments were presented in the
document:
•
The responsibility for regional water
resources management has traditionally
been one of the most essential tasks
of the regional water authorities. In the
future, too, this principle will be upheld,
in particular in respect of the assessment
of decisions on organization of regional
water management. This in particular
will relate to the Royal approval of
provincial regulations.
•
62
•
As far as possible, the organization
of water management will have
to comply with the requirements of
coherent management as explained
above. This means encouraging the
placing of responsibility for quantity
management and quality management
of surface water with a single party. In
that process, the splitting off of the
actual purification task should as far as possible be avoided, in order to avoid
as much as possible disrupting unity,
within quality management. This latter
fact is also particularly desirable from
the point of view of efficiency.’2
The Indicative Multiannual
Programmes for Water (IMP Water)
The Pollution of Surface Waters Act as
submitted to Parliament in 1964 did not
provide for any planning at national
level. On the other hand, the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Act did provide a
degree of insight into the speed at which
it was considered desirable that the
problem should be tackled.
2
See also chapter 4 by H.J.M. Havekes, Functional
decentralised water governance; guarantees, protection and developments. The institutional changes of the water authority in the past fifty years. PhD University of Utrecht (Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, 2009)
Explanatory Memorandum to the
Pollution of Surface Waters Act:
‘Apart from the industrial area
in Groningen for which sufficient
regulations are already currently
being prepared, at present, waste
is discharged in our country of 12
million people, and by industry
for the equivalent of a further
10 million. Of these discharges
– i.e. in total for around 22
million - around 3 million is
treated in purification plants.
Of the remainder – in other words
around 19 million – a fraction
can be rendered harmless by the
self-purifying capacity of the
receiving water. It has already
been submitted that in theory,
this capacity cannot amount to
more than around 5.5 million, in
other words less than one third;
in practice, the effectiveness is
even less. The shortfall in this
matter therefore at least (19 –
5.5) equals approx. 13.5 million
units. It is essential that this
backlog be caught up as quickly
as possible. Continuing at the
current pace, this would require
approximately 20 years.’
The most notable feature of this citation
from the Explanatory Memorandum is that
a water quality approach (effect-based
policy) is assumed, whereby measures
will be taken, in as much as necessary
from the point of view of water quality
and whereby maximum use of the selfcleaning capacity of the receiving surface
water is included in the calculations.
•
63
Later a subsequent turnaround led to a
decision to opt for an emission-based
approach, whereby, irrespective of water
quality, the operating principle was control
of pollution at the source, based on state
of the art technology.
As already stated, the draft law initially
contained no provisions on planning. This
however changed during parliamentary
discussion, when the members of the
Lower Chamber Oele and Van Koeverden
submitted an amendment which following
some discussion and alteration was
adopted, and read as follows: ‘Our
Minister of Transport, Public Works and
Water Management will lay down an
indicative multiannual programme every
five years for tackling water pollution
in our country, in consultation with the
Minister for Social Affairs and Public
Health, having heard the Council of State.’
The term indicative was included because
of what Mr Oele described as sovereignty
over own affairs, in other words because
central government cannot simply impose
obligations as contained in such a plan on
lower tiers of government.
Initially, whenever reference was
made to planning, the main subject
of discussion was the planning of the
technical purification projects that
had to be implemented. Over the
years, however, demand for a broader
structuring of the plans for water quality
policy rose. This included the inventory
and allocation of functions to surface
waters and the related quality objectives
(e.g. swimming water) or the ‘basic
quality’ which had been introduced by
that time. In addition, in connection with
international (EU) obligations, it became
necessary to improve the planning
processes, and embed them in law. As
a result, the Pollution of Surface Waters
Act was amended in 1981, among other
matters in respect of this point. First of
all, at provincial level, the obligation
was imposed to draw up water quality
plans, and in the event that water quality
management had been delegated to
regional water authorities, regional
water quality plans had to be drawn up.
The status of the Indicative Multiannual
Programme for Water (IMP Water) was
also amended, in the sense that the IMP
became a general legislative framework
for assessment of provincial water quality
plans, which were required to ‘take into
account’ the IMP programmes.
Although the obligation to draw up
Indicative Multiannual Programmes
was only included in the law at the last
minute, it played a significant role in the
progress of the execution of water quality
policy. This obligation not only made
it possible to analyze every five years
where improvements to the approach
were necessary and possible, and what
actions should be considered over the
next five-year period. The five-yearly
report on the state of affairs in respect
of the construction of public waste water
purification installations also became an
important benchmark, not only for the
government in its progress-monitoring
task, but also at regional level for the
government bodies in comparing the
progress in their area with that in other
regions. In other words, a form of
benchmark avant la lettre.
•
64
Policy Document ‘Omgaan met water’
(Living with water) (towards an
integrated water resources policy)
and the third National Policy
Document on Water Management (NW3)
The recognition of the need for greater
coherence in the policy and execution of
water resources management gradually
grew throughout the 1980s. From the point
of view of water quality, it became
increasingly clear that reducing discharges
although essential in achieving healthy
water systems, was not enough to recover
the ecological functions of the surface
water. In particular with a view to this
recovery of ecological values, structural
aspects were of vital importance. Thinking
in relation to integrated water resources
management was clearly developing, but
implementation in practice continued to
lag somewhat behind. In turn, coherence
within water resources management,
as already called for in the 2nd National
Policy Document on Water Management,
was made more difficult by various
elements, including the separation in
management tasks at the level of the
regional water authorities, between
quantity management and quality
management. The fact that the number
of regional water authorities with a task
concentrated on water quantity (despite
their relatively small scale) was still far
greater than the number of regional
water authorities with a water quality
task, played a significant role in that
respect. In addition, in respect of external
coherence at interdepartmental level,
the area of tension brought about by
the simultaneous development of an
integrated environmental policy proved
to be a key factor.
The policy document ‘Living with water’
(1985) with its clear calls for strengthening
both internal coherence within water
resources management and external
coherence between water resources
management and other policy fields, in
particular nature policy, environmental
policy and spatial planning, delivered an
important boost at both policy level and
implementation level. This set of ideas
was elaborated in the 3rd National Policy
published in 1989. The most notable
aspect of this document was the central
position occupied by ecology, in the
targets set for the future. The necessity of
a more ecologically-based structure and
management of water systems, alongside
the more traditional subjects such as
tackling pollution and maintaining the
water supply for human consumption
functions, was the most obvious
expression of this striving. It was also
undeniable that both the organization of
water resources management (integrated
water authorities organized for each water
system), the (statutory) set of instruments
and funding had to develop in line with
this initiated change in direction.
In as much as the discussion of renewal
within the system of regional water
authorities was or was not initiated by
the policy document ‘Living with Water’,
the elaboration of these policy principles
in NW3 delivered an additional impulse.
The establishment of integrated water
authorities and the need for a ‘broad
view’ in the exercising of tasks and
financing were massively accelerated, as
a consequence, in the 1990s.
•
65
4th National Policy Document on
Water Management: Strengthening
external coherence
Whereas environmental policy and water
(quality) policy had been brought closer
together for example through a combined
target group approach, the substances
policy and European Directives such as
those in respect of Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC), this
coherence was less advanced in respect of
the harmonization of spatial planning and
water policy. This was one of the policy
spearheads of the 4th National Policy
in 1998: to strengthen external coherence.
Also for the first time, responsibility
for flood protection became a subject
of a national plan. Another specific
characteristic of the NW4 document was
the open planning process that led to
its establishment. This not only involved
broad-based and intensive involvement
by various stakeholders, but also the
chosen mode of operation. The first step
was the drawing up of a vision document
(‘Ruimte voor Water’ – Space for Water)
as a point for discussion. On the basis
of the results of the broad discussions
involving all levels of government and
all relevant stakeholders, the next step
was to draw up the ‘NW4 Sketchbook’.
In respect of those subjects in which the
discussions had led to a clear direction to
be followed, this sketchbook laid down the
course to be set, while for other subjects
the foundations were laid for continued
discussions. This made NW4 one of
the first policy documents to be drawn
up in an open planning process, with
contributions from all stakeholders. It was
said of NW4 that ‘by means of an open
planning process, all parties involved in
water resources management were given
the opportunity to make their position
clear, in respect of current and future
water policy. The results of this process
have been formulated in the policy
outline in this, the fourth National Policy
Document on Water Management.’
High water and problems caused by
excess rain
The near floods in the area of the large
rivers and the floods in the river basin of
the Meuse in December 1993 and January
1995 meant that the focus on space for
water was not limited to the previously
mentioned vision document, but that
much attention was also paid to this issue
in the new strategy for flood protection.
Room for the River and the coastline is
one of the key themes in NW4. It more
or less formed the starting point for the
‘Room for the River’ process, and the
discussion on the value and necessity of
creating emergency overflow areas. Tying
in with natural processes and the recovery
of the resilience of water systems became
important guiding principles in future
water resources management.
Nonetheless, it was clear that not
everyone had as yet recognized the
need to strengthen the relationship
between spatial planning and water
management outside the river areas
and the coastal zone. Amendment of
legislation on this point only succeeded
following the considerable nuisance and
damage (to the tune of more than € 450
million) caused by severe excess rainfall
in various parts in the country in 1998,
causing local flooding. Alongside the
4th National Policy Document on Water
•
66
Management, in a very short period of
time, the policy document ‘The Approach
to flooding caused by excess rain (Aanpak
Wateroverlast)” was drawn up (in 1999) in
which central government, provinces and
the regional water authorities drew up
a joint plan of action for tackling excess
rain problems. The plan is made up of
four sections: a study of water resources
management in the 21st century,
administrative measures, measures in
the regional system and measures in
the main system. One of the subsequent
determining actions was the appointment
of the Committee for Water Resources
Management in the 21st century (WB21).
The NW4 document called for a roadmap
based on the credo ‘longer, wider and
deeper’.
The longer element would have to be
achieved by strengthening the focus
on the intended targets and objectives
laid down in the third National Policy
Document on Water Management. Wider
signified the need to opt for far stronger
coherence in terms of water policy and
water resources management with nature
policy, environmental policy and above
all spatial planning (it is remarkable how
often the term spatial planning is used
in NW4, in combination with the word
coherence). Deeper, finally, focused
attention on the possible consequences of
climate change and the long-term effects
of progressive land subsidence.
In its recommendations, the WB21
Committee responded in particular to the
latter two elements:
‘The Committee for Water resources
management in the 21st century
underwrites the course laid down in
the water policy contained in the fourth
National Policy Document on Water
Management and the memorandum
‘The Approach to flooding caused by
excess rain’. The Committee supports
the choice for spatial measures in the
water system. At the same time, the
Committee recognizes that this policy
is not being sufficiently implemented,
and has therefore issued a series of
recommendations to strengthen the
future implementation of water policy.
The Committee also adds a new element:
it suggests that water policy should
anticipate more on future developments
in the fields of climate, soil, population
and economic value, rather than
responding to incidents.’
WB 21: New Living with water
The road proposed by the WB21
Committee, characterized by the new
credo retain- store-discharge, above all
aimed at focusing greater attention on
preventing water nuisance problems such
as those in 1998, received support from
the government in the cabinet position on
water resources management in the 21st
century: ‘New living with water’.
This new approach to water was
also translated into a new form
of collaboration through the joint
establishment of agreements in a
National Administrative Agreement on
Water (2003), by central government,
provinces, regional water authorities
and municipalities. Whereas in the past,
the instrument of the ‘administrative
agreement’ had already been used in
respect of a specific subject – phosphate
removal – here it was applied to a far
broader problem. It demonstrated the
sense of solidarity in respect of the
•
67
approach to be followed. Or as put by
the administrative agreement itself,
‘The National Administrative Agreement
on Water shows how all layers of
government have joined forces, to work in
phases but at all times in concert, enabling
the Netherlands to live with water!’
New Administrative Agreement on Water
The formula of an administrative
agreement was re-employed in May 2011
to lay down agreements between the
various administrative levels. In a new
Administrative Agreement on Water,
central government and the umbrella
organizations for the provinces, regional
water authorities, municipalities and
drinking water companies laid down joint
agreements on five key themes, namely:
•Clear responsibilities and less administrative burden
• Manageable programme for flood
defences
• Efficient management of the water chain
• Smart combination of tasks and activities
• The administration of the regional
water authorities
National Water Plan 2009-2015 and
2015-2021
The latest additions to this family of policy
documents are the National Water Plans,
of which the first document focuses upon
implementing the European Water
Framework Directive. All water-related
subjects are discussed in this plan,
including water safety and water nuisance,
quantitative water management for ground
and surface water, including drought
problems, and policy in respect of water
quality and ecology. The relationship to
spatial planning is also considered, since
in addition to the main outlines of national
water policy, the plan also considers the
related aspects of national spatial policy,
and in respect of those spatial aspects,
also serves as the structural vision as
intended in article 2.3 paragraph 2 of the
Spatial Planning Act (Wro). In line with the
requirements of the WFD, the plan will be
reviewed at least once every six years.
The second document, the National Water
Plan 2015-2021 is more than only a six year
update of the first NWP. The plan is also
based on the four year Delta Programme
Project, which in the years 2011 – 2014
studied the possible long term challenges
for the Netherlands concerning flood
protection and the fresh water supply.
Long term in this case means that potential
climate change effects are taken into
account and that the project is looking
forward to the situation in 2050 and 2100.
Based on the studies that were carried
out, strategic decisions were taken by the
government and end- 2015 adopted by the
Parliament about five important subjects:
flood risk management; fresh water;
spatial adaptation; the IJssel Lake region
and the Rhine-Meuse delta.
Regional planning
The formal planning process at regional
level was initiated later than national level
planning.
Provincial water quality plans
In the early 1980s, the Pollution of Surface
Waters Act (WVO) was revised in such
a way that in addition to the obligations
upon central government to draw up a
central government water quality plan,
•
68
the provinces were required to draw up
provincial water quality plans. In this
period, the situation in three provinces
(Groningen, Friesland and Utrecht)
was still such that water quality tasks
had not been delegated to the regional
water authorities, as a consequence of
which the provinces were responsible
for implementation of this policy
themselves. For these provinces that
had not delegated the task, the plan
was therefore not only a policy plan,
but also an implementation plan. In the
evaluation of those plans, submitted
to the Dutch Lower Chamber in 1988,
it was pointed out that much attention
had been focused on the functions for
which legal quality objectives had been
formulated (swimming water, water
for salmon and carp varieties, shellfish
water, surface water for the production
of drinking water) and for basic quality.
It was however also noted that “Specific
ecological objectives have only been
allocated on a limited scale. Further
development of these objectives is
essential. Since we are still lacking a great
deal of knowledge, research is currently
being undertaken on a large scale, and
initial fieldwork is being carried out. The
study results will be used in a future
elaboration of the ecological objectives,
also on the basis of the CUWVO report
‘Ecological standards for Dutch surface
waters’. These plans represent a positive
first step in the further development of
the ecological objectives.”
Provincial groundwater plans
The provincial groundwater plans enjoyed
only a short life. The plans that had to
be drawn up on the basis of the 1981
Groundwater Act, were replaced after a
single series at the end of the 1980s, by
provincial water resources plans, in which
groundwater management was linked to
the quantity and quality policy in respect
of surface waters.
On the basis of the Groundwater Act, the
provinces were required to draw up a
policy plan in which the outlines of the
policies to be undertaken by the province
over the coming ten years would be laid
down. The internal function of the plan
was expressed by the requirement that
the Provincial Executive would have to
take account of the plan in any decisions
to be taken by them on the basis of the
Act. This related to the upholding of the
authority of the Provincial Executives to
issue permits. In addition to this internal
function, the plan also fulfilled an external
function. On the basis of the plan, it must
be possible for people to identify their
entitlements to the available groundwater,
and the consequences of proposed policy
for stakeholders.
The Groundwater Management Committee
(Commissie Grondwaterbeheer) evaluated
the first generation plans and in February
1989 issued a final recommendation on
those plans to the Minister of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management
(“Green light for groundwater
management”). In its recommendations,
the Committee pointed out that the
current groundwater level is often
implicitly accepted as the starting
point in the consideration of interests.
In the opinion of the Committee, this
assumption ignored the problem of
drought, and the resultant damage to
natural values and the possibilities of
repairing any such damage after the event.
•
69
Tier of
government
State
Province
Policy fields
Type of plan
Spatial
planning
Water
management
Environmental
protection
National policy
National policy
National
document on
document on water
environmental
spatial planning
management
policy plan
Management
National
plan for state
environment
waters
programme
Regional spatial
Provincial policy
Provincial policy
plan
document on water
document on
management
environment
Provincial
Strategic
Operational
Strategic
Operational
environment
programme
regional
water
authority and
municipality
Local land use
Management plan for local and regional waters
Operational
plan
Legal obligation to draft plan according to objectives and instructions
of the higher level of government
Coordination obliged by law
According to the Committee, it was
preferable to take the desired groundwater
situation as the starting point. As a
consequence, provincial water resources
plans would have to contain a statement
of the groundwater situation (level, flow
and quality) towards which the province
intended to work, on the basis of a careful
consideration of all affected interests.
Provincial water management plans
The developments towards integrated
water resources management gradually
made their way into legislation and
planning. The 1989 Water Management Act
represented a real step in this direction,
with the integration of the planning of
quantity and quality of surface water and
groundwater, in water management plans.
At provincial level, these plans took the
form of compulsory plans, and at regional
•
70
water authority level, voluntary plans. One
particularly important area for attention
at provincial level was the harmonization
and coordination of planning in respect
of water management, and planning in
other policy fields such as environmental
policy and spatial planning. This had to be
achieved via a form of planning described
as ‘leap frogging’ whereby the most
recently appearing plan incorporates
the most recent developments in the
individual fields, and as far as possible
harmonizes these elements. At the same
time, however, the provinces were
taking initiatives aimed at establishing
so-called ‘environment plans’, in which
local district plans, environmental policy
plans and water resources plans were
all brought together, at provincial level.
Today, the provincial water resources
plans have been replaced in the 2009
Water Act by ‘regional water plans’. This
fact expresses the idea that – based on
the river basin principle – a regional plan
need not be restricted to the territory of a
single province. However, the Provincial
Executives will be required to make sure
that the regional water plans together
cover the entire territory of all provinces
(section 4.4, paragraph 3 of the Water
Act). For the first-generation regional
plans, the provinces did in fact uphold the
provincial boundaries. In terms of spatial
aspects, the regional water plan also
serves as a structural vision as referred
to in section 2.2 of the Spatial Planning
Act. As a consequence, as is the case
with the national plan, the regional water
plan implements the intended coherence
between water resources management
and spatial planning and, also at
provincial level, makes it possible for the
Spatial Planning Act instruments to be
deployed for achieving the objectives as
laid down in the regional water plan.
Implementation and maintenance plans
Central government for state waters,
and the regional water authorities for
the regional waters were required to
draw up water implementation and
maintenance plans. The water quality
management plans as referred to in
the Pollution of Surface Waters Act
were still optional – later becoming
compulsory on the basis of the Water
Management Act, whereby the regional
water authorities were required to take
into account the provincial plan, and
provincial government the national plan
– the National Policy Document on Water
Management. According to the Water
Act, these two are compulsory plans.
For all of the water systems under their
management, regional water authorities
are required to draw up a management
plan. A management plan describes all the
actions taken by the manager in fulfilling
his tasks, in particular in respect of:
• the programme of measures and provisions;
• the additional allocation of functions;
• the way in which management will be undertaken;
• an overview of the financial resources.
One noticeable difference with provincial
plans is that in respect of the provincial
plan there is no obligation to take account
of the national plan, while management
plans of the regional water authorities do
have to take account of the provincial plan.
•
71
4.3 International
planning
International action
programmes: the Rhine Action
Programme
Following the establishment in 1950 of
the International Commission for the
Protection of the Rhine against Pollution
(ICPR), the war on water pollution was
gradually tackled on an international scale.
It still took some time however, before
matters really started moving. In 1963,
the international cooperation was
reconfirmed, and in 1972, agreements
were reached for the first time during a
Conference of Ministers of the Rhine.
The Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
France
Rhine river basin
Switzerland
Austria
Liechtenstein
•
72
True steps were taken in 1976 with the
agreement between the member States
(Switzerland, France, Germany,
Luxemburg and the Netherlands) on the
Rhine Chemical Treaty and the Rhine Salt
Treaty, implementation of which brought
about a visible improvement in water
quality. Nonetheless, these developments
also occasionally stagnated, for example
with the implementation of the Rhine Salt
Treaty.
The major fire at the Sandoz Chemical plant
in Basel (in 1986) was an important event
that made it clear to the international Rhine
community that major improvements
were still needed in the quality of the water
of the Rhine. This fire led to a change of
direction and the decision to implement
an ‘action plan approach’. Instead of a
subtle approach to achieving objectives
by formulating emission standards for
each substance and each sector, taking
deliberate account of competitive
positions, a daring target was set of
halving the pollution burden in the Rhine
at that moment, within a period of
10 years. The long-term image chosen to
stand for a clean Rhine was ‘the return of
the salmon to the Rhine’.
This action plan approach was then also
applied to the North Sea, with the drawing
up of the North Sea Action plan.
Rhine warning and alarm plan
The warning and alarm plan for the Rhine
(WAP) represents a special element in the
collaboration within the Rhine Committee.
The aim of the WAP is to report any
suddenly-occurring contaminations in
the Rhine basin with water-hazardous
substances, which due to their quantity
and concentration could negatively
affect the quality of the water and/or the
biocoenosis of the Rhine, and to notify the
authorities and services responsible for
dealing with such calamities.
The WAP distinguishes between warnings,
information notices and search actions.
Warnings are issued by the international
main stations (IMWS, see illustration) in
the event of contamination of the waters
with water-hazardous substances which
due to their quantity or concentration
could negatively influence the water quality
of the Rhine or the drinking water supply
of the Rhine.
Information notices are sent by the IMWS
stations to pass on objective, reliable,
expert information, irrespective of the
media. Information notices are also
passed on by the IMWS stations to the
Rhine basin nations for example in the
event of a violation of the orientation
values. The information is also used
to provide authorities with preventive
information.
Search actions are above all intended to
trace the root causes of raised levels of
contaminants, so that action can be taken.
•
73
Map of main international warning stations
R7 Rijkswaterstaat
Arnhem
The Netherlands
R6 Bezirksregierung
Düsseldorf
Belgium
R5 Wasserschutzpolizei
Koblenz
Luxembourg
France
R2 Préfecture du Bas-Rhin
Strasbourg
R4 Wasserschutzpolizei
Wiesbladen
Germany
R3 Landespolizeidirektion
Karlsruhe
R1 Amt für Umwelt und Energie
Basel-Stadt
Switzerland
Austria
Liechtenstein
Italy
•
74
The EU Water Framework Directive
(WFD)
As we have already suggested, starting in
the mid-1980s, ecology started to acquire
a more prominent role as an element to
be taken seriously in considering water
systems. Midway through the 1990s, the
European Commission took initiatives
to develop a new Water Directive. The
background for this decision was that a
previous Conference of Ministers had
concluded that an instrument was needed
to secure the ecological quality of the
water. As in the past, the Commission
continued its standard approach of
drawing up yet another Directive, with
individual planning, monitoring and
reporting procedures. Among other
countries, the Netherlands at the time
urgently called for a framework directive
based on a river basin approach, aimed at
eradicating the fragmentation which was
prevalent at the time (with the resultant far
too high administrative costs), and which
at the same time would allocate a far
more central position to ecological issues.
The Water Framework Directive published
by the European Union at the end of
2000 has assisted in ensuring that the –
international – river basin approach has
been taken up in all EU countries, with the
aim of ensuring ecological protection for
surface water and those areas dependent
on groundwater. The essence of this
approach is that it is based on river basins
and that – in the event of international
river basins – the operating principle
is cross-border cooperation. In the
Netherlands, too, this approach has borne
fruit in terms of cooperation between the
various stakeholders.
The Directive was introduced at a useful
moment, for the Netherlands. In a period
where interest in water quality and
ecology was gradually ebbing away,
the WFD delivered a major boost to the
ecological function of water systems. One
other important aspect of the Directive is
that it has resulted in greater uniformity
in the use of definitions, monitoring
programmes, reporting, etc. The various
guidelines drawn up jointly by the
Member States with the EC have played
an important role in that respect.
Whereas in the past the ecological status
had not always received full attention, the
WFD clearly laid down responsibility for
guaranteeing sound ecological values as
one of the core tasks of water managers.
This has had a positive effect on the
integrated approach to water resources
management in the Netherlands and the
other European countries. Even in periods
of waning enthusiasm for nature, this
remains in place as a clear final objective.
The WFD also served as an important
driving force in the integration of water
laws in the Netherlands into what is today
the Water Act.
The central element of the implementation
of the Water Framework Directive is the
river basin management plan3 (article 13
3
See also Van Rijswick and Havekes in European and Dutch
Water Law, Europe Law Publishing, Groningen 2012, in
which they indicate ‘European water law is characterized
by a planned and programmatic approach to achieving
the objectives of the various water directives.
Both the older water directives and the newer directives
such as the Water Framework Directive, the Floods
Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
contain obligations requiring Member States to draw up
plans and programmes’.
•
75
WFD), which is described by the EU as
follows: “All elements of this analysis must
be laid down in a plan for the river basin.
The plan is a detailed report of how the
objectives for the river basin (ecological
status, quantity status, chemical status
and objectives for protected areas) must
be achieved within the set timeframe.
The plan contains all results of the above
analysis: the characteristics of the river
basin and assessment of the effects of
human activities on the status of the waters
in the river basin, an estimate of the effect
of the existing legislation and the remaining
‘gaps’ in achieving these objectives, and
a series of measures to fill the gaps. An
additional component is that an economic
analysis of water consumption in the river
basin must be undertaken. This creates
the possibility of a rational discussion
on the cost effectiveness of the various
possible measures. It is essential that
all stakeholders be fully involved in this
discussion and also in the preparation
of the river basin management plan as a
whole.”4 Another important element is that
the WFD (article 14) encourages active
participation not only in the implementation
of the Directive, but also by encouraging
active participation by all stakeholders in
the preparation, revision and adaptation
of river basin management plans.
The draft plan on the basis of article 14
of the WFD must also be available for
examination, for six months.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/
info/intro_en.htm
4
The EU Flood Risk Directive
The main objective of this Directive (2007)
is to limit the consequences of floods
for the health of man, the environment,
cultural heritage and economic activities.
The Flood Risk Directive was included
in the Dutch national legislation in 2009,
in the Water Act. In 2010, a start was made
on actual implementation of the Flood Risk
Directive, in other words the production
of flood hazard and flood risk maps and
flood risk management plans.
Obligations of the Flood Risk Directive are:
•
An (initial) risk assessment for
identification of areas with significant
flood risks requiring planned
management.
•
Flood hazard maps showing the
characteristics of floods (geographical
scope, water depth, etc.) and flood
risk maps showing the consequences of
flooding in terms of potential damage
and numbers of persons affected.
Deadline: 22 December 2013.
•
Flood risk management plans, with
objectives and measures for reducing
flood risks.
Deadline: 22 December 2015.
•
76
The flood risk management plans must
contain the following elements:
•
the conclusions of preliminary flood
risk assessment in the form of a
summary map of the river basin district
or the unit of management referred to
in article 3(2)(b), delineating the flood
risk areas (identified under article 5);
• flood hazard maps and flood risk maps
and the conclusions that can be drawn
from these maps;
• a description of the objectives of flood
risk management;
•
a summary of the measures and their
prioritization with which it is aimed
to achieve the objectives of flood risk
management, including flood-related
measures taken under other European
legislation, including the EIA Directive,
the SEA Directive and the Water
Framework Directive;
•
for shared river basins or sub-basins,
a description of the methodology
defined by the Member States
concerned, of cost-benefit analysis
used to access measures with
transborder effects.
The EU Marine Strategy
Framework Directive
This Directive, introduced on 17 June 2008,
is aimed at laying down a framework for
community action in the field of marine
environmental policy (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive).
The aim of this strategy is ‘to protect and
preserve Europe’s seas and oceans and
to ensure that human activities have a
sustainable character, so that current and
future generations can enjoy and profit
from clean, safe, healthy and productive
seas and oceans, rich in biological
diversity and dynamism’.
The core of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive consists of the obligation upon
the Member States to adopt a marine
strategy in respect of waters under their
sovereignty or jurisdiction, for each marine
region or subregion concerned (article 5,
paragraph 1). For the Netherlands, this
is the subregion North Sea as part of
the north-eastern section of the Atlantic
Ocean. In the marine strategies, an
‘ecosystem-based approach to the
management of human activities’ must
be employed, in addition to which
‘the sustainable use of marine goods
and services by present and future
generations’ must be made possible
(article 1(3)).
In the Water Decree, it is determined that
the core elements of the marine strategy
will be contained in the National Water
Plan (NWP) and the Management Plan for
State Waters (BPRW). At present, these
plans include policy for spatial planning,
user functions and the environment on
the North Sea, as well as their financing
and realization. The marine strategy is
incorporated in the integrated North
Sea policy as contained in the NWP and
BPRW. The Water Decree also regulates
public participation and coordination
within the marine region.
•
77
EU Blueprint
Following the introduction of Directives
governing subareas of water management,
the next step by the EU is aimed at the
further integration of these subareas.
In 2012 the European Committee has
launched a Blueprint to Safeguard
Europe’s Water Resources, a strategy for
ensuring that enough good quality water
is available to meet the needs of people,
the economy and the environment.
The Water Blueprint highlights that
preserving water is not only about
environmental protection, health and
well-being. It is also about economic
growth and prosperity. It is a way of
ensuring that the EU water industry fully
develops its growth potential and that
all the economic sectors that depend on
availability of water of a certain quality
can prosper, thereby creating growth and
job opportunities.
The Water Blueprint sets out a three-tier
strategic approach:
•
Improving implementation of current
EU water policy by making full use of
the opportunities provided by the
current laws.
•
Increasing the integration of water
policy objectives into other relevant
policy areas such as agriculture,
fisheries, renewable energy, transport
and the Cohesion and Structural Funds.
•
Filling the gaps in the current
framework, particularly in relation to
the tools needed to increase water
efficiency.
4.4 Lessons learned:
Basics for planning
The importance of planning
Planning is an essential building block for
achieving objectives in integrated water
resources management. In establishing
greater coherence within water
management – quality management and
quantity management of surface waters
and groundwater – on the one hand and
between water management and related
policy fields – environmental policy, spatial
planning, nature policy, etc. – on the other,
planning will also have to become more
integrated in character. The examples of
this integration at national and international
level outlined above are clear examples
of such a development. A well-balanced
planning system with sound coherence
between the individual components at
international, national, regional and local
level forms a powerful instrument in
formulating and realizing policy objectives.
Moreover, planning is the ideal instrument
for awarding sufficient attention to the
long term in which these developments
are taking place.
Below, a number of the aspects previously
discussed are once again considered in
the form of lessons learned and basic
elements for good planning. At the end
of the section, I point out that planning is
not always the success factor it could be
in theory. There are all too many examples
of pitfalls that can result in excellent plans
never reaching fruition; and some of these
pitfalls are remarkably deep.
•
78
Internal and external coherence
Tasks and interests
One major line in the development
of water management planning, both
nationally and internationally, concerns
the development from planning in
subareas towards increasingly integrated
planning. Firstly, this involves the
strengthening of internal relationships
between water quantity management
and quality management for surface
water and groundwater. There is also
growing attention for external coherence
with other policy fields such as spatial
planning , environmental policy and
nature policy. The development of the
European Directives more or less follows
this same line.
When it comes to planning for regular
circumstances, the planning activity will
always in part be focused on ensuring
a better, more structured and more
integrated approach in implementing
government tasks. Effectively, it is
nothing more than a form of good
preparation. At the same time, the
importance of planning also lies in the
process of making strategic choices. This
calls for sound communication with the
stakeholders and careful decision making.
The objectives must be clear as must the
instruments, and how they are to be used.
Where priorities need to be set between
these interests, decision making will have
to take place clearly, in such a way that
the parameters and criteria employed are
clear to all stakeholders. Planning will
often be an interactive process in which
decisions are taken in consultation with
the social sectors.
One important additional element of
planning is that it makes it possible to
evaluate progress both in respect of the
measures and activities to be (under)
taken, and in respect of the objectives
to be achieved. In other words, planning
results in transparency in the exercising
of the tasks of the water manager.
Communication and participation
Another development – taking place
more or less hand in hand with the
above mentioned internal and external
broadening of scope – relates to the
increased attention for communication
and participation. Whereas plans were
originally drawn up by the responsible
authority with an opportunity for public
consultation, gradually, an intensive
interactive process has been introduced
aimed at involving all stakeholders in
the preparation of plans, in time and to a
sufficient extent.
Interests of society
Tasks water
manager
Water system or water body
•
79
Balance of interests
Cooperation without compulsion
One common phenomenon is that
management is undertaken according
to a single specific interest (for example
agriculture) or a limited number of specific
interests (safety and shipping). The other
interests are then considered as being
less relevant. This applies in particular if
the water manager has or believes it has a
specific responsibility in respect of a social
sector.
In the past, this was for example the case
in the Netherlands with the regional water
authorities which, based on their history,
were tied closely to the agricultural sector.
In the case of the Department of Public
Works and Water Management, shipping
was another sector in which policy
responsibility at the Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management
was a specific responsibility that had a
clear influence on priority setting when
it came to taking measures. It is of key
importance that all interests be balanced
as is required in the Water Act.
A final comment relates to the lesson
learned that less strict legal forms of
cooperation sometimes bring about
faster results than highly regulated
forms. Cooperation in the international
Rhine Committee often proved to be
a forerunner in comparison with the
establishment of EU Directives. One
essential building block for the Rhine
agreements was trust, whereas EU
agreements were for a long time based
on detailed regulation. A similar trend
appears present at national level in
the implementation of administrative
agreements as a means of optimizing
efforts in mutual cooperation. Such
administrative agreements specifically
offer less detailed frameworks thereby
making it possible to take account of
regional differences.
Facet and sector
sector
sector
sector
sector
Integration
Balanced weighing of interests
sector
sector
sector
sector
Integration
Unbalanced weighing of interests
Planning as a pitfall
In addition to the undeniably numerous
positive elements of planning, it is
equally important to point out the
pitfalls that planning can sometimes
represent. All too often, plans turn out to
be nothing more than paper tigers that
end up on the backburner, and are barely
implemented, if at all. The procedure for
the establishment of plans can also be an
argument for postponing measures. For
example one effect of the WFD was that
in a period of allmost 10 years between
the entry into force of the Directive
(2000) and the adoption of the river basin
management plans (2009), in a certain
sense a brake on the implementation of
actual measures was applied. After all,
so went the argument, let us not take
any measures now, while we are still at
•
80
work drawing up the plans. In a recent
publication by Zanting and Leewis5, it is
noted that the decisiveness demonstrated
in the elaboration of (new) policy is often
almost entirely absent in actual execution.
There is often a gap between plan and
implementation.
There are also numerous international
examples of policy plans drawn up in
the framework of development aid that
years later turn out to have not been
implemented, but merely replaced by
the next plan. With reference to the first
chapter on the three-layer approach to
water governance, it should here once
again be emphasized that a plan alone is
not enough, if equal attention is not paid
to other elements of the institutional and
relational layer of water governance in
relation to the content of the problem.
Organization, legislation and funding
must be adequate, and at the relational
level, the culture (expressed for example
in a shared sense of urgency) and
collaboration must be such that decisive
action is taken.
Harm Albert Zanting en Martine Leewis, Klimaat voor
waterlanders, Bericht aan de Deltacommissaris, Eburon, Rotterdam 2011.
5
4.5 Conclusions
In particular for integrated water
resources management in the future, it
is essential that measures be considered
at an early stage, in order to be prepared
for developments that are likely to
take place in the (far) future (climate
change, sea level rise, salinization, land
subsidence, urbanization, etc.). This
calls for a solidly-planned approach.
Via a structured approach of this
kind, the intended objectives of water
management can be identified, the
necessary measures developed, and
all taken into joint consideration. In
that process, both internal and external
coherence must receive sufficient
attention. Internal coherence calls for
the specific consideration of the water
systems and policy, as a whole, and the
implementation of water safety, quality
management and quantity management
of groundwater and surface water,
including the wastewater chain, all
designed coherently.
External coherence relates to a range
of other policy fields, such as spatial
planning, nature and environmental
management, agriculture and market
gardening, traffic and transport,
power supply, urbanization and
economic development. Above all the
harmonization of water management
with spatial planning is crucial, also on
an international scale. In many (delta)
countries, there is as it were a struggle for
every square metre of land, whereas it is
sometimes wiser to zone that particular
land for water-based purposes. If that
does not happen, at the end of the day,
•
81
the water will eventually take back its own
space, with all the resultant disastrous
consequences. A planned approach can
help ensure that water is given its due
position in good time, in all spatial area
developments, without us being faced
with a fait accompli.
One essential precondition for any plan is
the provision of sound financing.
A plan without a budget will generally
speaking have no chance of actually being
implemented.
A planned approach is also the ultimate
tool for closely involving a diverse group
of stakeholders in water management, in
good time, in the water policy and water
management to be implemented. Via this
early involvement, it is possible to tie in as
well as possible to the wishes prevalent in
society. The same applies to international
river basins in case of transnational water
problems.
European water policy is also characterized
by a highly planned approach, whereby
clear examples are the compulsory
river basin management plans and the
flood risk management plans from the
WFD and Flood Risk Directive. In other
countries, the realization that such a
planned approach is essential is becoming
increasingly common (Indonesia) and
‘delta plans’ are currently being prepared
(Vietnam).
Finally, it is important that we guard against
the risk of plans becoming stranded at
the level of good intentions. Instead,
conditions must be created to ensure that
plans are actually efficiently implemented.
4.6 A NEXT STEP
IN THE NETHERLANDS:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT ACT
Although still rather young, the Dutch Water
Act will – in the next years – be succeeded
by a new law, the Environmental
Management Act. In line with the aims of
the Water Act, the new act is meant to
integrate different aspects of environmental
legislation and should at the same time
make things less complicated and easier
in use for the stakeholders. One of the
leading ideas is that a citizen or company
for getting permission for an activity only
needs to submit one application.
The government is then responsible to
ensure internal coordination. Important
consequence for the planning process is
that its scope is also widened from water
in conjunction with spatial planning to all
environmental aspects. The law has been
adopted mid-2015 by the Lower Chamber
but - at the beginning of 2016 - still has
to pass the Senate.
•
82
5 Adequate
financing
of water
management
Authors: Herman Havekes en
Robert van Cleef
•
83
•
84
5.1 Introduction
Good water management requires a
great deal of money! Means are required
not only for investments in dykes, dams,
irrigation systems, purification plants,
sewerage systems, etc. but also for
the day-to-day costs of management and
maintenance and the governance costs
of water management. Sound financing
must therefore be available.
Unfortunately, however, in practice this
often proves not to be the case. As a
consequence, what is known as the
‘funding gap’ is one of the greatest
bottlenecks in water management.
As already outlined in chapter 2, the 17
countries investigated in the OECD survey
have identified the funding gap as the
most important of the gaps facing them.
Without sound funding, little will come
of any water management plans.
Fortunately, the importance of an adequate
financing system has today been broadly
recognized, and international treaties,
guidelines and studies include a number of
extremely important principles in that
respect, such as the principle of the
polluter pays and the principle of cost
recovery for water services. Particular
reference should be made to the relevant
provisions in the European Water
Framework Directive (WFD). A turnaround
also seems to be taking place in the idea
that water is supposedly a gift from God,
for which no payment can be demanded.
At the sixth World Water Forum held
in Marseille in March 2012, one mayor
from an African country succinctly
summarized the situation. “Water may
be a gift from God, but He doesn’t bring
it to your front door”. This turnaround
is making it simpler to employ basic
funding principles whereby clear account
is automatically taken, and indeed must
be taken, of the payment capacity of the
various population groups.
The structure of this chapter is as follows.
In section 5.2 we give a brief outline of
the funding of water management in the
Netherlands and recent developments.
Section 5.3 deals with a number of
important principles according to the OECD
and the WFD, whereby the Blueprint from
the European Commission and a study
by the OECD on the funding of water
management are also considered.
In section 5.4 we briefly discuss the
Financing System Assessment Tool,
developed by the Water Governance
Centre, and in section 5.5 the need
for economic analyses within water
management. After all, generating the
necessary funding is one thing; spending
the money thus collected in a sensible
manner is quite another. In section 5.6
we plead for introducing an international
standard, 1% of GDP, for the required
funding on a country level. Section 5.7
ends the chapter with a number of
conclusions.
•
85
5.2 The financing
of water management in
the Netherlands
The financing of water management in the
Netherlands, which in 2013 amounted to a
total of 7.8 billion euros, can be described,
according to the tasks allocated to the
various levels of government.1
Central government is responsible for
managing the main water system,
waterway management and a number
of major dykes and dams. Central
government is also currently undertaking
the Room for the River programme.
The funding required for this work – in 2013
totalling 2 billion euros – is obtained
almost entirely from nationally-levied
tax income. Only for the discharge of
waste water in State waters a separate
pollution levy is charged (see article 7.2
et seq. of the Water Act), which generates
approximately 20 million euros each year.
In 2013, the provinces spent 305 million
euros on water and waterway management.
Only for the abstraction of groundwater
do they charge a levy (see article 7.7 of
the Water Act) which each year generates
approximately 15 million euros.
The regional water authorities are almost
entirely self-supporting and for the most part
finance their activities via their own levies.
They only receive a financial contribution
for the strengthening of primary flood
defences from central government. Until
Toekomstbestendige en duurzame financiering van
het Nederlandse waterbeheer, Twynstra Gudde, Tauw,
30 juni 2015.
recently, this contribution covered 100%
of the relevant costs. In the Administrative
Agreement on Water, it was however
agreed that from 2011 onwards, the
regional water authorities would also
make a contribution to this amount. In
2015, with a contribution of 181 million
euros, they are paying half of those costs,
per year. For water system management
(water retention, water quantity and water
quality), the regional water authorities
operate a system of water levies as laid
down in articles 116 et seq. of the Regional
Water Authorities Act. In 2013 this levy
generated more than 1.23 billion euros.
This bill is paid by households, owners of
buildings (including dwellings), farmers
and land managers of nature areas. This
final category pays a marginal amount
totalling 2 million euros per year. The
waste water treatment tax regulated in
articles 122c et seq. of the Regional Water
Authorities Act is spent on waste water
purification measures. This levy is paid by
households and businesses connected to
the purification plants, and in 2013 also
generated 1.2 billion euros. Finally, anyone
directly discharging into water managed
by the regional water authorities pays
a pollution tax which in 2013 generated
approximately 9 million euros.2 These
sources of income enable the regional
water authorities to cover their regular
management and installation costs, as
well as investing more than 1.3 billion
euros each year in water management
activities.
1
Waterschapsbelastingen in 2014, Association of Regional Water Authorities, The Hague 2014.
2
•
86
Expenditures dutch water management tasks 2013
In million euros
National government
1.998
Provinces
305
Regional water authorities
2.427
Municipalities
1.760
Drinking water companies
1.384
18%
25%
4%
22%
31%
The municipalities finance their sewage
management tasks and duties of care for
rainwater run-off and urban groundwater
levels via the sewerage charges regulated
in the Municipalities Act. These charges are
paid for by households and companies
connected to the sewerage system, and in
2013 generated approximately 1.46 billion
euros.3
3
Atlas van de lokale lasten 2013, Coelo 2013, p. 24.
Finally, the drinking water companies
send bills to their customers for the
delivered drinking water. In 2013, this
amounted to a total of 1.44 billion euros.
•
87
Recent initiatives
In 2013 the OECD conducted an openminded study on the question: is the Dutch
water management fit for the future?
The final report that was published
in 2014, states that the Dutch water
management has an excellent reputation
and can be seen as a reference for the
world. In relation to the financing system
the report holds recommendations
and states that ‘economic incentives
could be strengthened and made more
consistent with water policy objectives. In
particular they can ensure that those who
generate liabilities with regards to water
management also bear the costs’.4 In short
it recommends to strengthen economic
incentives to manage “too much”,
“too little”, “too polluted” water efficiently
and equitably by making beneficiaries
and/or polluters pay.
Following these results, the Dutch Minister
of Infrastructure and the Environment and
the governing bodies responsible for water
management (provinces, regional water
authorities, municipalities and drinking
water companies) agreed to start a
process towards a sustainable and
future proof financing system. The main
principles in this process are described
in a letter of the Minister of Infrastructure
and the Environment to the Dutch
Parliament.5 The process started in 2015
with a baseline study to gain insight
in the existing financial arrangements
and map the future developments that
Water Governance in the Netherlands: Fit for the future?,
OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing 2014, p. 18.
Parliamentary Proceedings II (Kamerstukken II),
2014-2015, 27625, no. 340.
4
5
might impact water management and
the financial arrangements. Now all
stakeholders have joined forces to define
proposals for improvement of the Dutch
financing system, by the end of 2016.
This brief summary of the funding of
Dutch water management leads to the
following conclusions. Firstly, even in
a country as small as the Netherlands,
we see that each year almost 7.8 billion
euros is spent on water management.
This underlines the fact that water
management is a very costly business.
It should be pointed out that the various
public bodies are specifically working
towards increasing the efficiency of
water management, as a result of which
substantial cost savings could be achieved
(from 2020 onwards 750 million euros per
year). Specific agreements on this issue
have been laid down in the Administrative
Agreement on Water entered into in May
2011 by the various parties.
Secondly, central government spends
relatively little money on water
management. Less than 0.8% of the
national budget is spent on water
management, and central government
is responsible for not more than
approximately 25% of the total annual
expenditure on water management.
For a water-rich and vulnerable delta
country like the Netherlands this is a fairly
remarkable observation; and even that
money is generated almost entirely via
general tax income, in other words, levies
not relating to water.
•
88
Thirdly, in connection with the above
comments, it is observed that the vast
majority of the total of 7.8 billion euros
spent on water management in the
Netherlands in 2013 was financed via
decentralized levies and prices paid
by stakeholders, users and polluters.
Particular attention should be paid to
the levies charged by the regional water
authorities and municipalities and the
price charged by the drinking water
companies for their product. On average,
Dutch households in 2012 spent almost
540 euros on these levies and prices,
representing a slight fall as compared to
2011. It should also be noted in respect
of these decentralized levies – an aspect
that is also important on an international
scale – that there are various possibilities
for remission that take account of the
payment capacity of lower income
categories. It has also become clear that
the Dutch authorities still have work to do
and it is promising to see that all water
related institutions have welcomed the
challenge to further improve the financing
system.
5.3 BASIC PRINCIPLES
FOR THE FINANCING OF
WATER MANAGEMENT
As a consequence – in fourth and final
place – we can speak of a financing
structure which to a considerable
degree does justice to the principle of
the recovery of costs of water services,
including ‘the polluter pays’ as laid down
in article 9 of the WFD. This provision is
discussed in the next section.
Although the principle of ‘the polluter
pays’ has existed for quite some time,
the WFD, which entered into force at the
end of 2000, is of particular importance
in this connection. Article 9 of the WFD
calls upon the Member States to take
account of the principle of the recovery
of costs for water services, in particular
the polluter pays principle. In addition,
the Member States must make sure
that water pricing policy contains
adequate incentives to encourage
users to make efficient use of water
supplies, thereby making a contribution
As emphasized above, water management
costs a great deal of money. This
funding is often unavailable in sufficient
amounts from central government. This is
exacerbated by the fact that good water
management is above all an issue for
the medium to long term. Even if at first
glance there appear to be no acute water
problems, money will still have to be
spent for management and maintenance
and installation costs. However, this is a
difficult political issue, as experience has
taught us in many countries. For more
than one reason it is therefore wise to
allocate the costs or most of the costs
of water management to stakeholders,
users and polluters, thereby guaranteeing
sufficient funding. Because of their
direct demonstrable interest in good
water management, it is not more than
reasonable for these categories of
stakeholders to contribute to the costs of
the water management.
•
89
to the environmental objectives of the
WFD. Furthermore, on the basis of this
provision, the various water consuming
sectors, broken down into at least
households, businesses and agriculture,
must make a ‘reasonable contribution’ to
the recovery of costs for water services.
In the light of this terminology, there is
no question of the complete recovery
of costs. Nonetheless, the European
Commission (EC) does attach considerable
value to cost recovery. This is reflected in
the EC’s earlier communication on water
pricing policy, published on 26 July 2000.
Its ‘Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water
Resources’ published on 14 November
2012 also underlines the importance of
pricing policies. In setting their water
pricing policy on the basis of article 9
of the WFD, the Member States are able
to take into account the relevant social,
environmental and economic effects,
and the geographical and climatological
circumstances of the affected areas.
Paragraph 4 of article 9 also contains
a generally formulated possibility, in
accordance with established practices, not
to apply the obligations referred to for a
specific form of water-use activity, if such
non-application does not compromise
the purpose of the Directive and the
achievement of its objectives. In this way,
the Member States are offered a degree
of leeway, particularly useful for a number
of Southern European countries. As yet,
water services in these countries are still
practically free or are financed entirely
from the central government treasury.
Despite this leeway, the message is clear:
the WFD intends to achieve a system of
water pricing.
To thoroughly understand the principle of
the recovery of costs of water services, it
is of course first important to understand
what is meant by the term ‘water services’.
Article 2 of the WFD defines the term as
follows: ‘all services which provide, for
households, public institutions or any
economic activity:
a abstraction, impoundment, storage,
treatment and distribution of surface
water or groundwater;
b waste-water collection and treatment
facilities which subsequently discharge
into surface water’.
This definition reveals that under all
circumstances, the entire ‘water chain’
must be viewed as a water service,
in other words drinking water supply,
sewerage and waste water treatment.
There are also sound reasons for viewing
water quantity management as a water
service, because surface water is stored
and distributed over large distances, in
respect of specific economic activities
(agriculture, shipping, energy supply,
etc.). Responsibility for flood defences is
more difficult to fit within this description.
The Flood Risk Directive introduced in
2007 in no way altered this situation. In
the Netherlands, as already outlined in
section 5.2, half of the costs for water
defence structures are already charged to
the stakeholders, via the system of water
levies.
The essence of the WFD is to bring about
a situation in which these water services
are no longer financed via the general tax
income of central government, but via
specific taxes or prices that are charged on
to the various sectors, including at least
•
90
households, businesses and agriculture.
According to the EC, this approach offers
a better guarantee that sufficient funding
will be available for water management.
In a study by the OECD6, the importance
of adequate ‘public funding’ for water
management is once again emphasized,
which will surely come as no surprise,
given the OECD report on water
governance discussed in chapter 2.
In an appendix to this new report, a
rough estimate is given of the worldwide
investments in (exclusively) drinking
water and sanitation provisions up to
the year 2050. Depending on the precise
method of execution, the OECD estimates
the amount between 7.52 and 9.23 trillion
USD. These are almost inconceivable
amounts. No figures are given for the
necessary investments in dykes, dams,
retention areas and irrigation projects.
Given the climate problems, sea level
rise, land subsidence and population
growth, enormous investments will also
be necessary in those areas, which may
even be of a similar order of magnitude.
After all, an ever growing proportion of
the world’s population, in the future some
70%, lives in delta areas.
OECD (2012), A Framework for Financing Water Resources
Management, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing.
6
These amounts emphasize the importance
of sound funding for water management.
The OECD places this in the light of four
challenges which they recognize in water
management (page 14):
1
Increased competition between
water users (farmers, energy suppliers,
industries, households, ecosystems)
intensifies to access the resource.
2Untreated waste water from cities (primarily in non-OECD countries) and
effluents from agriculture deteriorate
water quality in several regions.
3 The number of city dwellers and
the value of economic assets at risks of
floods increase.
4
The number of city dwellers without
access to water supply has increased
over the last two decades. The situation
is even direr as regards sanitation.
According to the OECD, public funding is
an essential element of the financing of
water management, and itself is subject
to four key principles (pages 14-15):
• the polluter pays principle;
• the beneficiary pays principle;
• the equity principle;
• the coherence principle between
policies that affect water resources like
agriculture, land use or energy.
The first two of these principles are a
clear reference to article 9 of the WFD, as
described above. One problem identified
in that connection by the OECD is that the
explanation of the term ‘water service’ is
unclear, and varies widely in the different
•
91
countries of the EU. Germany, for example
considers only drinking water supply and
waste water disposal as water services.
The EC has brought Germany before the
European Court of Justice in this matter. In
2015 the Court of Justice of the European
Union was for the first time challenged to
specify the scope of the principle of cost
recovery for water services in the context
of the WFD.7 The most relevant aspect
of the court ruling was that recovery of
costs for water services is just ‘one of the
tools’ available to the Member States to
reach the goals of the WFD. In other words
other ways are not excluded. This implies
that the impact of cost recovery for water
services as the one and only instrument
has lost some of its weight. Scholars have
thoroughly criticized this judgement.8
Furthermore, effectuation of the polluter
pays principle still leaves a great deal to
be desired in many countries. The OECD
identifies four reasons for this failure.
Firstly, diffuse sources of pollution are
difficult to deal with, a reference above all
to the agricultural sector. Certain countries
such as Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden
and the US, however, have introduced
a product levy on artificial fertilizers
and pesticides. Secondly, regulations
governing water discharge are poorly
enforced, in many countries. Thirdly,
ownership rights and institutional obstacles
form a considerable problem, and finally,
sometimes historical contamination and
contamination caused by rain and air form
a stumbling block. In some situations,
taxing of water consumption is not a
suitable solution, because the water
consumer can hardly be held responsible
for the pollution in question.
Water management serves a wide variety
of interests, from which many sectors
such as businesses, agriculture, energy
supply and households all profit. In other
words, it is possible to set a price for the
consumption of water (both surface water
and groundwater), and this is indeed done
in many countries. This ties in well with
the ‘adequate incentives’ in the water
pricing policy called for in article 9 of the
WFD.9 There are however also indirect
advantages that are difficult to measure,
for example for ecosystems and transport
facilities. It is more difficult to set a price
for these advantages; nonetheless, in
the study, a number of specific examples
of ecosystem and shipping levies are
presented. Israel, for example, operates
a well-balanced system of levies for river
recovery.
The equity principle (according to which
water must also be affordable for the
less well-off) and the necessity for policy
harmonization are discussed fairly briefly,
with reference to the fact that in a number
of countries such as Spain, government
subsidies to agriculture in fact promote
the inefficient use of water.
Contrary to these adequate incentives, groundwater tax
based on the Environmental Taxes Act, of approx. € 0.18
per m3 in the Netherlands, was scrapped as of 2012.
This tax generated approx. 180 million euros per year,
which was in fact not spent on water management, but simply flowed into the government treasury.
9
Case C-525/12, on the European Commission against
the Federal Republic of Germany.
8
See P.E. Lindhout, Cost recovery as a policy instrument to
achieve sustainable and equitable water use in Europe and
the Netherlands, PhD Utrecht University 2015, Chapter 5.
7
•
92
The OECD study also contains a detailed
overview of the various water levies
applicable in the countries covered by the
study. If in this overview any common
element can be identified, then it is the
very low rates charged for the abstraction
of surface water and groundwater. On
some occasions, additional exceptions
apply to the agricultural sector. In its
study, the OECD calls for the following
step-by-step approach (pages 17-18):
1
Ensure that sectoral policies and
initiatives that have implications for
water use are coherent and considered
in conjunction with water management
policies.
2 Define and inventory the public good
components of water management and
seek to value them where possible.
3
Inventory and value the private benefits
of water management. A variety of
valuation methods is available and can
usefully be used in combination.
4
Identify beneficiaries, and allocate the
financial burden across beneficiaries.
The four principles above provide a
framework on which to build. Previous
work has established that social
objectives are better attained through
well designed, targeted social measures.
5Consider a range of instruments
to harness beneficiaries. Economic
instruments can play a prominent role,
in combination with other instruments,
when carefully designed under
appropriate institutional and governance
structures.
6
Seek to raise commercial finance.
The capacity to attract commercial
finance for particular aspects of water
management (such as infrastructure
development and the delivery of water
services) will depend on the robustness
of the institutional and regulatory
framework, including business models
in place (who pays for what).
In the light of the final recommendation,
it is interesting to point out the fact that
sixty years ago, the Dutch regional water
authorities established their own bank,
the Nederlandse Waterschapsbank N.V.
(NWB Bank) to meet their own capital
requirements. The financial situation of
the regional water authorities around the
1950s was far from healthy. This meant
it was difficult – or expensive - to attract
capital to finance investments in water
management. So at that time the idea
arose for the regional water authorities to
set up a bank of their own. This initiative
was speeded up following the North Sea
Flood of 1953, and in 1954 NWB Bank
came into being. This bank provides for
the capital needs of the regional water
authorities and is able to do so at a
competitive rate of interest. As the bank
only lends to the public sector, it runs
hardly any risk; consequently its credit
rating is triple A. NWB Bank’s current
balance-sheet totals over 88 billion euros
and each year around 5 billion euros
in new loans are granted. The bank’s
shares are held by the regional water
authorities, the State and a number of
provinces. NWB Bank takes corporate
social responsibility very seriously. In late
2006, together with the Dutch Association
of Regional Water Authorities, it set up the
•
93
Stichting NWB Fonds, a fund that among
other things finances international projects
set up by Dutch regional water authorities.
In 2015 the OECD defined 12 principles for
good water governance (see chapter 1).
One of these principles is the ‘financing’ of
water management. Financing is together
with ‘data and information’, ‘regulatory
frameworks’ and ‘innovative governance’
one of the elements that define the
‘efficiency’ of water governance.
This principle is to ensure that institutions
collect and allocate financial resources
in an efficient, transparent and timely
manner, through:
a
‘Promoting governance arrangements
that help water institutions across levels
of government raise the necessary
revenues to meet their mandates,
building through for example principles
such as the polluter-pays and user-pays
principles, as well as payment for
environmental services;
bCarrying out sector reviews and strategic
financial planning to assess short,
medium and long term investment and
operational needs and take measures to
help ensure availability and sustainability
of such finance;
c
Adopting sound and transparent
practices for budgeting and accounting
that provide a clear picture of water
activities and any associated contingent
liabilities including infrastructure
investment, and aligning multi-annual
strategic plans to annual budgets and
medium-term priorities of governments;
d
Adopting mechanisms that foster the
efficient and transparent allocation of
water-related public funds (e.g. through
social contracts, scorecards, and audits);
and
e
Minimising unnecessary administrative burdens related to public expenditure
while preserving fiduciary and fiscal
safeguards.’10
If the WFD, the EC Blueprint, the OECD
study and the new OECD principles
are considered in conjunction with one
another, the inevitable conclusion
is that the introduction of systems of water
pricing must continue to be propagated.
On the one hand, such systems offer the
best guarantee of sufficient funding for
water management, while on the other
hand they also do justice to the fact that
interest groups profit from good water
management. This fact has been standard
practice within the Dutch regional water
authorities for some 500 years, via the
well-known adage interest-pay-say. It is,
however, essential that all relevant sectors
are called to account; at present, some
sectors including agriculture, energy supply
and shipping, are still able to mostly avoid
their responsibilities. Secondly, the rates
charged should preferably be realistic,
thereby doing justice to the huge amount
required for good water management.
The current rates charged in many countries
for the abstraction of surface water and
groundwater are far too low, in that light.
Furthermore, the levying and collection
of water charges must be carried out
10
OECD Principles on Water Governance, June 2015, p. 10.
•
94
efficiently, in other words at acceptable
perception costs of not more than 10%.
Finally, it is essential that any funding
charged to interest groups are ‘earmarked’,
in other words, the funding thus
generated must be spent by the public
organization in question exclusively for
water management.
5.4 FINANCING SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT TOOL (FAT)
In the light of the above, it is useful to
refer to the recently established Financing
System Assessment Tool (FAT). Sterk
Consulting and the Water Governance
Centre jointly developed this instrument
and tested it (in two countries). FAT can
be useful in assessing financing systems
in water management.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of
examples of how poorly-functioning
financing systems can lead to inefficiency
and even disasters in water management.
Take for example the consequences for
hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The
hurricane caused 1,836 deaths and 125
billion USD in economic damage. This
disaster could have been avoided if the
financing system had operated correctly.
It turned out that the money intended for
flood defences was insufficiently labelled
and was not spent on dykes and other
waterworks, but on apparently more
urgent issues such as the war in Iraq and
the construction of casinos.
The FAT tool is a low-threshold, handson instrument. It consists of 4 successive
stages. In each of these stages, a number
of questions are answered. The first two
stages are preparatory, and determine
the scope, as well as preparing an
outline picture of the current situation.
Actual assessment takes place in stage 3.
Following assessment, recommendations
are formulated in stage 4.
Stage 3 of FAT represents the actual
assessment of the financing system,
according to a clear list of criteria.
These criteria are based on national and
international reports on the functioning of
economic instruments, price mechanisms
and financing systems. The FAT criteria
can be broken down into two groups:
• the criteria Stability and Sufficiency
are two key indicators that provide
a picture of how solid and mature a
financing system is;
• the other three criteria Cost Recovery
Principle (CRP), efficiency and
effectiveness provide greater insight
into how a financing system operates.
In 2015 a FAT application based research
was conducted on the relation between
flooding and the financing system.11 The
financing of drinking water and sanitation
(generally known as WASH) has occupied
experts and practitioners for more than
a decade, resulting in well-developed
financing systems in most of the countries.
However, the financing of water resources,
which is tightly connected to flood risk
11
Assessing the Financing of Water Management, How
poor financing systems can lead to flooding disasters,
Efthymia Fachouridou and Robert van Cleef, 2015.
•
95
management, appears to be an
underdeveloped policy area (OECD, 2010).
Floods constitute a significant threat
for human health, economic activities,
cultural heritage and the environment.
What is more, flood risk is expected to
increase in the future due to the effects of
climate change, but also as a direct result
of human activities such as expanding
assets in flood risk areas and increasing
soil compaction or deforestation. The
research was focused on flooding issues
in three participating countries namely
the United Kingdom (UK), Serbia and
Colombia. These countries demonstrate
a wide variety of political, administrative
and economic backgrounds. In the
context of this research several in-depth
interviews with water management
experts and practitioners were conducted
and questionnaires were filled in.
The respondents recognized a clear
connection between the destructive impact
of the flooding incidents and the financing
system at place. It is notable that the focus
is mainly on two important variables
within a financing system: sufficiency and
stability. In Serbia, the available financial
resources are not sufficient neither for
covering the maintenance costs nor for
new investments, something that has
caused damages in infrastructure and
severe disruption in project planning.
In the UK, the financial sources currently
spent are considered sufficient by the
government for the time being. However,
stability is not ensured as demands are
expected to increase in the future due
to the adverse consequences of climate
change and potential increase of the
protection levels demanded by citizens.
Similarly, the strong dependence of
the Colombian implementing agencies
on the government budget, exacerbates
competition with other sectors. Also the
economic situation is insufficient and
discontinuous.
A financing system holding a more
decentral way of collecting revenues
lacks in most countries and is seen as
a strong step forwards. The last main
issues arising are the cost recovery and
beneficiary pays principles. The necessity
to apply these principles was widely and
strongly recognized by the respondents
of all three countries. However, the full
implementation of even the current
economic instruments is restricted,
not only because of the social reaction
expected and users’ limited ability to pay,
but also because decentralised authorities
lack the capability to further develop the
respective fund raising instruments.
To further develop and apply the FAT
application can result in multiple
advantages. It is a way to initiate
discussion and put the financing system
in the spot light, leading government and
society to become aware of problems
and in turn, overcome local opposition
and government’s inertia to resolve
legislative constraints. In addition, this
is a tool that, despite its limitations in
quantitative accuracy, is able to provide
an initial picture about the condition of
the financing system and its weaknesses.
Then, researchers can continue with
in-depth assessments regarding those
variables that are considered the
poorest or most crucial for the system’s
improvement.
•
96
score financing assessment tool
UKSerbia
Colombia
100
80
60
40
20
0
ce
n
re
he
Co
y
t
ui
y
nc
ie
c
fi
Eq
Ef
ss
ne
ve
ti
ry
ve
co
re
c
fe
st
Ef
Co
ty
i
il
ab
St
cy
en
i
ic
ff
Su
Finally FAT has also been successfully
tested for the situation in South Africa
and Ethiopia. The test reveals that in
South Africa, serious steps need to be
considered in adapting the financing
system. Firstly, financing needs to be
deregulated to subnational layers of
government. In addition, the basic human
rights principle needs to be reconsidered.
This principle results in free drinking
water for the poor, but also leads to waste,
abuse and the neglect of water facilities.
An honest price, even for the poor, would
help to emphasize the value of water.
•
97
5.5 ECONOMIC ANALYSES
WITHIN WATER MANAGEMENT
Both the WFD and the OECD report
underline the importance of thorough
economic analyses within water
management. They are justified in doing so.
It is after all often difficult enough to raise
the necessary financial resources for the
intended measures. The stakeholders must
then be able to be confident that those
resources will be deployed efficiently, and
not spent on measures that on balance
prove to be less cost effective. To offer
one concrete example from Dutch water
practice: the sewerage system is not
dimensioned for downpours that
experience have taught us occur only
once every 200 years. Such an approach
would be far too costly. It is far wiser and
cheaper to accept occasional flooding
in the streets, and as necessary to
compensate residents for the damage.
In fact, the policy of regional water
authorities and municipalities at present
is aimed specifically at ‘disconnecting’
rainwater from the sewerage system,
as a result of which substantial cost
savings can be achieved in both sewerage
management and in the waste water
treatment plants, due to the fact that
relatively clean rainwater is no longer
discharged, or needs to be purified.
A number of regional water authorities
are for this reason granting so-called
disconnection subsidies to municipalities.
An example from other countries is the
desalination of seawater for agricultural
purposes (irrigation).
For certain crops, such an operation can
easily turn out to be disproportionately
expensive.12
Seen in that light, an economic approach
to water management is both valuable and
in essence vital, even though it cannot be
expected to be a cure-all. A so-called
cost-benefit analysis should be a standard
element in all major, costly interventions.
In such an analysis, it is important to
consider all items on both the cost and
benefit side. Costs should not only include
the direct investment costs and the
annually-recurring costs for management
and maintenance but also the
accompanying negative effects on the
environment. Practice has shown that
much improvement can be achieved
in this area.13 The benefits of intended
interventions will also have to be accurately
inventoried. This may well reveal that good
water management will offer a number of
initially unexpected advantages, ranging
from avoiding victims and economic
damage, improved health and recreational
facilities and even rising house values.
In that sense, investments in water
management are also often economically
viable. The OECD report (page 24)
calculates that every pound spent on flood
protection in England in the long term
generates an 8 pound benefit.
Nonetheless, some caution must be
maintained. The same report (page 77)
refers to a costly desalination installation
12
See P.J.G.J. Hellegers, Water: the world’s most valuable
asset, inaugural speech Wageningen University,
6 October 2011.
13
Hellegers (p. 7) shows that the price of irrigation water
is generally lower than the costs for management and
maintenance, therefore not resulting in full cost recovery.
•
98
built in Sydney, Australia, due to fears
of future water shortages. By the time
the installation was ready, predictions
about the drought problem had been
considerably readjusted. By establishing
a levy on water consumption, the
construction of the installation could have
been avoided, leading to far less costs at
the end of the day.
5.6 AN INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD OF 1% of GDP
Water management requires an immense
amount of money. For sanitation and
drinking water alone an investment of
some 8 trillion US Dollar is required until
2050. This excludes maintenance let alone
investments in the water system such as
dikes, dams, irrigation systems et cetera.
The FAT assessments in various countries
showed that in most countries the
variables of ‘sufficiency’ and ‘stability’
have proven to be the biggest concern.
Also the representatives of countries
consider the financing system of water
management as a more or less fixed
system and a system that is very hard
to change. The question therefore is what
can be done to initiate change and
to improve the sufficiency and stability
of these financing systems? A recently
published article states that an
international driver can function as an
inspiration and reference for individual
countries to move forward. Often
individual countries require a reference
in order to get a process on the way. For
the member states of the European Union
one of these drivers is the WFD. However,
since the court ruling of the Court of
Justice of the European Union the impact
of cost recovery for water services, has
weakened. In countries outside of Europe
e.g. the continent of Africa there are no
international drivers known.
So both for European and other countries
around the world options for an
international standard that could function
as an international driver should be
examined. One of the most promising
options is to introduce an international
standard in terms of a ‘% of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) spend on water
management’. In other policy fields such
as the military and health care,
international data on the spending in terms
of this parameter is already in place.
The World Bank e.g. publishes ‘military
expenditures data’ for many countries.
The advantage of such an arrangement is
that all countries are obliged to identify
precisely (and publish) how much they
spend on water management. It will
require international consultation resulting
in clear international definitions for e.g.
activities and the different types of costs
that have to be taken into account.
Furthermore, such an agreement
stimulates countries to think carefully
about the financing of water management
and consider changes. Finally an
international parameter can function as
an international standard that allows for
countries to compare national facts and
figures with those of other countries.
Countries can learn from this information
and at the same time it can stimulate
countries to learn from each other.
•
99
An international discussion should be
started on what percentage is the lower
limit for a solid and ambitious level of
water management. Based on known
information the percentages seem to vary
between 0 and 1,5%. In the Netherlands
some 1.26 % of GDP is spend on water
management. In Kenya this percentage
is 0,7% but the government wants to
enhance this percentage to 1%. In Ghana
it is 0.5%. Most countries do not have
this figure. A first standard could be a
1% of GDP target. In the countries that
spend less then this percentage, water
management is often poor or more
or less disabled. In fact it is simple: a
minimum amount of money is required.
With a minimum of 1% of GDP a mature
water management seems achievable.
We strongly recommend to set an
international ‘1% of GDP water financing
standard’.
5.6 CONCLUSIONS
It has become clear in this chapter that
adequate funding is at present perhaps
the most important bottleneck worldwide,
in terms of water management. Sufficient
funds will have to be available for
the necessary investments, annual
management and maintenance, and
governance costs. This money can only be
obtained if we are reasonably successful
in introducing the principle of cost
recovery for water services, including
the polluter pays and the beneficiary
pays principles. The application of these
principles is of inestimable value for
good governance of water management.
By having households, agriculture and
industry pay for water management,
they will all be made more aware of the
costs of water management, and of the
contributions they can make to reducing
those costs. In this chapter, the various
principles have been analyzed and further
elaborated. We have also considered a
specific Financing System Assessment
Tool and have shared the results of these
assessment in different countries. We
have concluded that emphasizing that
economic cost benefit analyses within
water management are essential, in order
to avoid misspending of the already
scarce financial resources. We have
concluded by pleading for the introduction
of an international water financing
standard, the 1% GDP standard.
•
10 0
6
Participatory
approach
Author: Andrea van der Kerk
•
101
•
10 2
6.1 Introduction
As stated in Chapter 1, participation is
one of the main building blocks of water
governance. If we look at the three-layer
model, participation is strongly connected
to the relational layer, as well as to the
institutional layer, since it needs to be laid
down in laws and regulations. In this
chapter, I introduce the concept of
participation (section 6.2) and indicate its
relevance to water governance processes
(section 6.3). Section 6.4 provides an
overview of the international (legal)
framework on participation and section 6.5
pays specific attention to examples of
participatory processes in the Netherlands.
Furthermore, I draw lessons from
experiences around the world, and identify
challenges and success factors (section 6.6).
The chapter ends with some concluding
remarks (section 6.7). Throughout the
chapter, three concrete cases of
participation are highlighted: one at the
city level (box 1), one in a rural area (box 2)
and one at the national level (box 3).
6.2 Participation:
a concept with many
meanings
The importance of participation has long
been recognized by a wide variety of
national and international organizations,
institutions and governments. Like ‘water
governance’, however, it is a term that
is frequently used, but often not clearly
defined. It has different meanings to
different people. On its website, the World
Bank defines participation as ‘a process
through which stakeholders influence and
share control over development initiatives
and the decisions and resources which
affect them’. One of these resources is, of
course, water: a resource on which every
human being on the planet depends.
When we talk about participation in water
management processes, we are referring
to the involvement of stakeholders in
deciding how water is used, protected,
managed or allocated. Stakeholders
can be defined as all non-governmental
groups, organizations and companies
that have a stake or interest, because they
are affected by or have influence on a
decision.1 As indicated by the World Bank,
this involvement is a process rather than
an ad-hoc activity. Participation can take
place at local, regional, national and
international levels in all water subsectors.
Stakeholders can be involved to varying
degrees in planning, project identification,
design, development, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation processes
and activities. The participatory approach
is often presented as a three-step
process, with each successive step giving
stakeholders more involvement:2
Ridder, D, E. Mostert and H.A. Wolters (eds.) (HarmoniCOP Team) (2005). Learning together to manage
together - Improving participation in water management,
University of Osnabruck, p. 2.
2
See e.g. OECD (2001) Engaging Citizens in Policy-making:
information, consultation and public participation;
European Communities (2003). Guidance Document
No 8 Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework
Directive, and Ridder, D. E. Mostert and H.A. Wolters (eds).
(HarmoniCOP Team) (2005). Learning together to manage
University of Osnabruck.
1
•
10 3
1 Information: a one-way relationship
in which the government provides
citizens with access to information. This
is the most basic form of participation.
The government can play a relatively
passive role (i.e. only providing access)
or a more active role (i.e. producing and
disseminating information).
2 Consultation: a two-way relationship
in which the public can react and provide
feedback to government proposals.
It requires the provision of information
and a government authority that seeks
the ideas of the public.
3 Active involvement: a relationship based on partnership in which
stakeholders are actively involved
in the planning process by discussing
issues and contributing to their
solutions. Stakeholders can influence the process through, for example,
discussions with authorities, involvement
in determining policy agendas,
representation in in the boards
of regional water authorities, and
participation in implementation and
evaluation processes.
In addition to these three stages, the
possibility for stakeholders to legally
challenge the decisions of authorities is
often also mentioned as an important
element of participation.
6.3 Why a participatory
approach?
As mentioned, the importance of
participation in water management is
emphasized by many international
organizations and institutes. Participation
is recognized as one of the building blocks
of integrated water resources management
and has been identified by the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) as a core element
of integrated public governance of water
policy.3 The participatory approach is also
strongly rooted in the OECD Principles on
Water Governance4, which are introduced
in section 6.4. But what makes participation
so relevant? How can a participatory
approach contribute to good water
management?
Balancing interests: a core
task of the government
First of all, participatory processes enable
citizens to make their voice heard and
to help central, regional and local
governments to balance interests.
Governments, particularly democratic
governments, are mandated to serve
society. Therefore, governmental policy
should be aimed at fulfilling society’s
wishes, whenever such is possible and
achievable. This holds for government tasks
in general and for water management in
particular. Water, after all, is central to all
aspects of life. It has many functions for
many actors, and intervening in the water
OECD (2011), Water Governance in OECD Countries:
OECD Publishing, p. 23.
4
OECD (2015). OECD Principles on Water Governance.
3
•
10 4
system always affects a wide range of
users and interests.
Water is essential not only for economic
growth, but also for the environment,
public health, culture and national safety.
Since water has so many uses and users, a
wide range of stakeholders are involved in
water management: households, farmers,
fishermen, companies, conservationists,
environmentalists, skippers, tourists, etc.
They all have specific wishes with respect
to water management, and their wishes
often conflict. Agriculture, for instance,
benefits from groundwater levels that
are not too high, while nature interests
generally ask for higher water levels.
Entrepreneurs seek convenient locations
for their companies, and tourists want
to enjoy water without being disturbed.
Therefore, choices have to be made.
Also, stakeholders often have to pay for
the measures through pricing and taxes,
which increases their concern with the
design and implementation of measures.
Balancing the interests of different
stakeholders and taking their wishes into
consideration is a core task of democratic
governments.
implemented. Well-organized participation
with the right stakeholders on board
helps to enhance the effectiveness of the
implementation of measures.
Involving stakeholders in decision-making
processes can foster ownership: people
feel that they have been listened to
and that the decision is partly theirs.
This sometimes means that difficult
decisions are more easily accepted and
implemented by the involved actors.
Public participation at the outset of the
decision-making process helps to build
broad-based consensus on projects and
programmes. Allowing members of the
public to express their views regarding
social and environmental conditions in
their communities and taking those views
into consideration in the governmental
decision-making process expands the
knowledge base for decisions, resulting in
improved implementation. Stakeholders
can identify and address problems at
an early stage, saving time, energy and
financial resources in the long run.5
Ownership and effectiveness
Water governance is strengthened if
the different interests of stakeholders
are served as much as possible, and if
interventions that cannot be avoided are
discussed and explained. Governments
usually cannot implement policies or solve
problems by working alone. This holds
especially for numerous measures where
the collaboration of certain stakeholders is
essential; for instance, farmers often own
the land on which measures have to be
Earle, Anton and Malzbender, Daniel (eds.) (2006)
Stakeholder Participation in Transboundary Water
Management – selected case studies, African Centre for
Water Research, Cape Town South Africa, p. 6.
5
•
10 5
Box 1: City level
Bringing stakeholders together
to address pollution
problems – Bogotá, Colombia
Participation can take many forms.
The central idea of the SWITCH
(Sustainable Water Management
Improves Tomorrows Cities Health)
project was that winning the
engagement of key stakeholders in
cities is central to making the
shift towards more sustainable and
coordinated urban water management.
Learning alliances – a specific type
of multi-stakeholder platform –
were created in each city to bring
stakeholders together to develop
creative solutions for complex
problems. SWITCH was a five-year
experiment (2006-11) in 12 cities
across four continents. The project
set out to establish what was
needed for a transition to more
sustainable urban water management
through a combination of demand-led
research, demonstration activities,
multi-stakeholder learning and
training, and capacity building.
The SWITCH project in Bogotá
addressed the highly polluted Río
Bogota, which flows through the
city. The focus was on preventing
pollution by unofficial, small-scale
tanneries upstream of the city.
Bringing together the key players–
a tanners’ association, the
environmental regulator, local
government, an NGO, a university
and the chamber of commerce –
resulted in a number of positive
outcomes. Almost half of the
polluting, informal small
enterprises have now implemented
cleaner production principles
thereby removing much of their
pollution. This has also led to
an increase in their productivity.
Water use in the tanning process was
reduced by 68%. SWITCH supported
local action and a process of
conflict resolution, capacity
building and long-term dialogue;
the regulator is now pursuing and
supporting such approaches.
Efforts are being undertaken to
upscale the project.6
Local level and sustainability
In its report on multilevel water
governance,7 the OECD emphasizes that
especially the engagement of local actors
is key for managing water in a sustainable
way. In addition, IRC, which carried out a
study in 88 communities in 15 countries,
identified the involvement of community
members in local planning decisions as
one of the most important factors for
the sustainable performance of water
systems. Involving local stakeholders
in the design and execution of projects
disseminates regional and local
knowledge and ideas, which can improve
SWITCH Bogotá website:
www.switchurbanwater.eu/cities/14.php
Butterworth, John, Marieke Adank and Carmen Da Silva
Wells (IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre), 2012.
Water cooperation in cities for the UN-Water Conference on
Water Cooperation, Zaragoza, Spain, 8–10 January 2013.
7
OECD (2011), Water Governance in OECD Countries:
OECD Publishing.
6
•
10 6
the quality of water management.8 Public
consultation can help to identify the main
local activities that affect surface water and
groundwater and raise awareness of key
problems.9 Local knowledge of local
conditions can be utilized in solving local
problems more efficiently. What is more, not
engaging local communities in decisions
that affect the local water situation can
lead to social unrest and conflicts.
Box 2: Rural areas
Community involvement in water
management in GUATEMALA
Getting access to safe drinking
water is a challenge in many rural
areas in Guatemala. Municipalites
are responsible for drinking
water supply, but rural areas
are often neglected. Communities
living in these remote rural
areas created Community Water
and Sanitation Commissions (CAS)
to build, organize and operate
their own water and sanitation
facilities. The Commission
members are democratically
elected and work voluntarily.
They draft regulations defining
responsibilities, rules and
budgets, which are then discussed
and adopted in meetings with
the whole community. Access
to information also plays an
important role in this case.
IRC and WSP (2004) Methodology for Participatory
Assessment, www.irc.nl
European Commission (2008). Water Note 12:
A Common Task: Public Participation in River Basin
Management Planning.
8
9
Many community members were not
aware of the bad quality of their
drinking water, which led to
deadly diseases and children dying
of diarrhoea. Health inspectors
are now encouraged to explain the
results of water quality tests
to the community members in an
understandable manner, illustrated
by drawings. They also teach the
communities about the consequences
of drinking contaminated water
and how the water systems can be
disinfected.10
Transparency, compliance and
accountability
Some organizations and experts stress
that encouraging participation in the water
sector contributes to transparency and
accountability. For example, the Water
Integrity Network (WIN) regards
participation as one of the basic pillars of
water integrity and argues that participation
is key to promoting transparency and
accountability in the water sector.11 Also
the OECD states that increasing public
participation is a means to increase
both the transparency of environmental
policies and citizens’ compliance with
them.12 Transparency is fostered by
making information on water-related
issues public, which is one of the basic
Van der Kerk (2014). Construyendo integridad en el sector
agua: relatos desde Guatemala. Water Integrity Network
and HELVETAS Guatemala.
11
Water Integrity Network (WIN), UNDP Water Governance
Facility at SIWI, Cap-Net, Waternet (2011). Training Manual
on Water Integrity, p.16, 30.
www.waterintegritynetwork.net
12
OECD (2011). Water Governance in OECD Countries:
OECD Publishing, p. 99.
10
•
10 7
elements of participation (see section 6.2).
This information can be used by citizens
to hold their governments accountable if
they do not perform well.
6.4 International
framework
To promote the institutionalization of
stakeholder participation, international
laws, agreements and principles have
been drafted that incorporate provisions
encouraging governments to involve
stakeholders in water management.
This section highlights some of the most
influential documents.
Dublin principles (1992)
The Dublin Statement on Water and
Sustainable Development (the ‘Dublin
Principles’) was adopted at the International
Conference on Water and the Environment
(ICWE) in Dublin, Ireland, in January 1992.
The declaration sets out recommendations
for action at local, national and international
levels to reduce water scarcity and the
misuse of fresh water. Principle 2 states
that ‘water development and management
should be based on a participatory
approach, involving users, planners and
policymakers at all levels.’13 The four
Dublin Principles form the basis for the
integrated water resources management
(IWRM) approach.14 (See Chapter 3 on
the legal system.)
13
Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development
(1992).
14
Global Water Partnership (1992). Dublin – Rio Principles.
Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development (1992)
At the UN Conference on Environment
and Development in 1992, participation
was highlighted by the international
community as one of the most important
principles to promote sustainable
development. Principle 10 of the adopted
Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development stipulates that énvironmental
issues´ such as water áre best handled
with the participation of all concerned
citizens, at the relevant level´. This entails
that citizens have ‘appropriate access to
information concerning the environment’
and ‘the opportunity to participate in
decision-making processes’. States are
urged to make ‘information widely
available’ to facilitate public awareness
and participation. Furthermore, citizens
should have ‘effective access to judicial
and administrative proceedings, including
redress and remedy’. The importance of
participation of women and indigenous
people is especially emphasized in
Principles 20 and 22.15
UNECE Aarhus Convention (1998)
An important treaty that stresses the
importance of participation is the UN
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision-making and
Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
It was signed in June 1998 in the Danish
city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial
Conference in the ‘Environment for
Europe’ process, and is commonly known
15
UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992).
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
•
10 8
as the Aarhus Convention. It entered into
force in October 2001.
The first article states the convention’s
objective, namely that the parties
‘shall guarantee the rights of access
to information, public participation in
decision-making, and access to justice in
environmental matters’. The convention
grants the public the right to:
• have access to information on the
environment held by government
authorities;
• participate in the decisions taken
by these authorities that affect the
environment;
• review and legally challenge such
decisions.16
The convention was signed by the
European Union, which has integrated the
Aarhus principles in specific water-related
legislation, namely the Water Framework
Directive.
EU Water Framework Directive
(2000)
The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
was adopted by the European Parliament
and Council in October 2000 to improve
the quality of European water bodies.
It entered into force in December 2000
and establishes a legal framework to
protect and restore clean water across
Europe and ensure its long-term,
sustainable use. Public participation is
central to the WFD. The WFD established
the broad involvement of stakeholders
16
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) (1998).
as a general principle and prerequisite
for successful implementation. Article 14
calls on Member States to ‘encourage the
active involvement of all interested parties
in the implementation of this Directive, in
particular in the production, review and
updating of the river basin management
plans’. It states that the success of the WFD
relies on close cooperation between
relevant authorities and the public,
including water users. According to the
European Commission, public input
will help Member States balance
environmental, economic and social
priorities in their river basin management
plans.17
The directive calls for information to be
provided to the public on river basin
management plans. This should happen
before final decisions on the measures
are adopted. Participation occurs via
consultation mechanisms (written or
oral) that government bodies use to
consult stakeholders and jointly develop
solutions to problems. When consultation
works well, the public and stakeholders
participate actively in the development
and implementation of river basin plans.
This leads to shared decision-making,
whereby they become jointly responsible
for the outcome of the developed plan.
Information provision and consultation
are obliged by the directive; active
involvement is encouraged.18
17
European Commission (2008). Water Note 12:
A Common Task: Public Participation in River Basin
Management Planning.
18
EU Water Framework Directive (2000); European
Commission (2008). Water Note 12: A Common Task:
Public Participation in River Basin Management Planning.
•
10 9
Sustainable Development Goals
(2015)
OECD Principles on Water
Governance (2015)
In September 2015, all 193 countries of
the United Nations (UN) agreed on a
new set of development goals that will
follow up on the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) which end in 2015. The
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
form a framework for development in
all countries and are outlined in the
´Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development´. The
framework comprises 17 goals and 169
targets, covering a wide range of topics
promoting sustainable development.
There is one specific goal focusing on
water, including several targets linked
to water issues. One of these targets
(6b) calls to `Support and strengthen
the participation of local communities
in improving water and sanitation
management´.19 Countries will have to
report on the progress they make to
achieve the targets, based on indicators
which will be finalised in March 2016.
Participation is also highlighted in
the Principles on Water Governance
developed by the Water Governance
Initiative (WGI) of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). The WGI started in March 2013
as a multi-stakeholder platform of more
than 100 delegates from public, private
and non-profit sectors. The principles were
endorsed by a large number of public,
private and non-profit organisations at
the 7th World Water Forum in April 2015.
They were also welcomed by the OECD
Council at Ministerial level in June 2015
and will be included in a Recommendation
of the Council on Water. Principle 10
focuses specifically on how ´stakeholder
engagement for informed and outcomeoriented contributions to water policy
design and implementation´ should be
brought about. Principle 11 encourages
´water governance frameworks that help
manage trade-offs across water users (…)´
through for instance ńon-discriminatory
participation in decision-making´ and
´public debate´.20
UN (2015). ´Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development´ and www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
19
20
OECD (2015). OECD Principles on Water Governance.
•
11 0
6.5 Participatory
approach in the
Netherlands
The geographical location of the
Netherlands with its long coastline and
a large part of the country being below
sea level makes good water management
essential for its survival. Two thirds of the
population lives in areas that are exposed
to flood risk, either from rivers or from
the sea. Also two thirds of the gross
domestic product is earned in these areas.
The history of the Netherlands is marked
by the struggle for ‘dry feet’, and extreme
events such as the flood disaster in 1953
have made the Dutch aware of their
vulnerable location.
General framework
The participation of stakeholders in such
issues as water management is anchored
in various laws and regulations, such
as the General Administrative Law Act.
International agreements such as the
Aarhus Convention and the WFD have
also shaped participation processes in
the Netherlands. Access to information
on Dutch water management is provided
through various channels (e.g. the online
national Water Help Desk and the local
Water Desks) where the public can
find information on various subjects
and can ask questions. Also the Water
Management Centre in the Netherlands
at Rijkswaterstaat (the executive arm
of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment) provides information to
users of the Dutch water system. Users
can turn to the Water Management Centre
for information regarding water levels,
flood risks and (bathing) water quality.
Dutch citizens also have the right to hold
the government accountable in the case
of shortcomings in discharging its public
responsibilities.21
Stakeholders are regularly consulted
on water issues, for example in the
development of river basin plans to
achieve good water quality before 2015,
as prescribed by the WFD. In 2008 - 2009,
Dutch citizens were invited to react to the
draft plans and submit their visions. These
visions were considered by the Ministry of
Infrastructure and the Environment before
it finalized the plans in 2009. Policymakers
and decision-makers also consult
representatives from various sectors and
civil society via platforms at national
and regional levels (e.g. Overlegorgaan
Water en Noordzeeaangelegenheden, and
klankbordgroepen).
Finally, specific participation by-laws
(inspraakverordeningen) oblige Dutch
municipalities, provinces and regional water
authorities to involve the public in plans
and projects. The third level of participation
– active involvement – in Dutch water
management can be exemplified by
the functioning of the regional water
authorities and the Room for the River
programme, as described below.
Regional water authorities
Whereas Rijkswaterstaat manages the
four large river basins, the 22 regional
water authorities (RWAs) are mandated
to manage the water systems and
monitor the safety of the inhabitants
against flooding in smaller water bodies
H.F.M.W. van Rijswick and H.J.M. Havekes (2012).
European and Dutch Water Law, p. 448.
21
•
111
(see Chapter 2 on the organization
of water management). They act in
close cooperation with municipalities,
provinces, the national government,
knowledge institutes and civil society
organizations. The Regional Water
Authorities Act 1992 stipulates that
participation should be provided for in all
regulations introduced by the RWAs.
RWA boards consist of representatives
of residents, landowners (farmers), nature
reserve authorities and businesses.
The residents’ representatives comprise
the majority of a RWA board.22 These
representatives are directly elected every
four years by the residents of the territory
managed by the water authority and are
actively involved at an early stage of a
planning process. The other representatives
on the board are not chosen, but nominated
by their umbrella organizations. Citizens,
farmers and companies in the water
authority´s territory pay specific taxes
directly to the water authorities to pay for
their activities. Water authorities can also
request citizens and farmers to carry out
certain tasks, such as cleaning the stream
next to their house or land.
Room for the River
Extreme river water levels in 1993 and 1995,
which led to the evacuation of citizens and
livestock, urged the Dutch government
to re-evaluate its flood risk management
strategy. It set up a € 2.3 billion water safety
programme titled ‘Room for the River’
(2006 - 2019), which instead of raising
the flood defences, adopted a new
H.F.M.W. van Rijswick and H.J.M. Havekes (2012). European and Dutch Water Law, p. 171-172.
22
approach that allows more space for
rivers to flow. This is being achieved
through various types of river widening
measures in the rivers Rhine, IJssel
and Waal. The programme also aims
to contribute to the quality of the river
area in terms of nature, recreation, the
local economy and liveability. The Room
for the River programme also adopted
an innovative (multilevel) governance
approach in which government agencies
in different disciplines (e.g. water safety,
planning, agriculture, nature) and at
national, regional and local levels are
actively collaborating. Core elements
of this multilevel approach are now
being implemented in the Dutch Delta
programme (see box 3).
Participation plays a central role in the
Room for the River programme. One
of the reasons for giving the lead to
regional governments was that these
governments would more easily gain
community support and provoke less
resistance, because they usually know
the local community better than the
national authorities. Participation
processes have been given a lot of
attention and stakeholder participation
was achieved with such instruments
as expert days, stakeholder workshops
and informal brainstorming sessions
(keukentafelgesprekken).
•
11 2
Box 3: National level
Jointly developing a Delta
programme
Participation also plays a key
role in the Dutch Delta Programme,
which is aimed at keeping the
Netherlands safe from flooding and
supplied with sufficient fresh
water now and in the future. It is
a national programme to acquire
knowledge and expertise to prepare
for important water management
decisions, strategies and measures.
Provinces, municipalities and
regional water authorities work
closely together in the programme
with civil society organizations,
companies and knowledge institutes.
A specific Delta commissioner was
appointed by the Dutch government
to lead the programme. Consultation
rounds were organized and
representatives from different sectors
and civil society were invited
to contribute to the process.
Citizens could also participate
in components of a sub-programme
that are open to public input at
municipal or provincial offices and
could express their opinions on
the Delta commissioner’s website.23
The consultation processes resulted
in five “delta decisions” which
guide a new way of working in
flood risk management, freshwater
supply and spatial planning.
The programme is now entering its
implementation phase.
Delta commissioner website
www.deltacommissaris.nl/english/
23
6.6 Lessons learned:
challenges and success
factors
Participatory approaches are by no means
a recipe for successful water governance.
Participation can be a complicated process
that needs to be tailored to the national,
regional and local circumstances and
conditions. If this does not happen,
participation can even be counterproductive
and, for example, undermine the trust
between authorities and stakeholders.
But is participation always required
and where do the boundaries lie? How
can one balance the interests between
different stakeholders? What if the visions
and expectations of the stakeholders
conflict or are unrealistic? There is no
blueprint for meaningful stakeholder
participation. Still, some generalized
lessons regarding the implementation
of participatory methods in water
management processes can be drawn
from experiences around the world. Here,
I outline a number of these identified key
challenges and possible success factors.
•
11 3
Challenges
Insufficient or delayed
participation
The Dutch Room for the River programme
(see section 6.5) encountered some
difficulties in the participation process
when participation was implemented
late or too late in the process, or was not
applied in a proper way. In some cases,
the local citizens were not engaged in the
design process and the plans came as an
unpleasant surprise to them. Meaningful
participation is more than presenting
draft designs to citizens and companies.
It is about strategic interaction, starting
early in the process with opportunities for
participants to influence decision-making,
but without raising false expectations.24
Time- and money-consuming
Participatory decision-making processes
usually take more time than is the case
when a water manager takes unilateral
decisions. Negotiating with different
stakeholders and societal groups is not
a one-day exercise. All aspects of the
participation process (i.e. information
provision, consultation and active
involvement) take time and often cost
money. It is a long-term process that
needs to be developed carefully. And if
local stakeholders are not well informed
or engaged, their protests or resistance
can delay the process. When stakeholders
are involved in the planning and decisionmaking process, the implementation
process probably takes less time and
resources than is the case with unilateral
decision-making.25
Dominance of a small group and
conflicts
One of the challenges in participation
processes is to overcome the dominance
of a small group of stakeholders at the
expense of the needs and interests of a
larger group. There is a chance that the
interests of the small group will be better
heard than those of the larger group,
especially if the former is well organized
and has access to the right people and
funds. In this regard, it is important to
also try to engage the people who initially
might not be keen to attend meetings and
discussion platforms.
Conflicts in participation processes can
occur between different stakeholders
or groups thereof, as a result of
different problem perceptions, a lack of
acknowledgement of these differences,
a lack of trust, etc. Conflicts are not
necessarily counterproductive, however,
since they make agreement and
disagreement between stakeholders
explicit. Conflicts can also provide an
opportunity to really address persistent
problems and build a basis for
cooperation between different actors.
Ridder, D, E. Mostert and H.A. Wolters (eds.)
University of Osnabruck. p. 7.
25
Hulsker, Walter, Manfred Wienhoven, Marlies van Diest
and Steef Buijs (2011). Evaluatie ontwerpprocessen
Ruimte voor de Rivier, ECORYS Nederland, p. 47.
24
•
11 4
Success factors
Example of a participation
process 26
1Preliminary problem identification
2 Conduct stakeholder analysis
3Develop participation
strategy
a Decide on stakeholders to actively
invlove
b Decide/agree on level and timing of
involve
c Decide/agree on the scope
d Set-up project organisation; if possible,
hire a professional facilitator
e Decide/agree on methods and tools
to use
fCheck resources
g Write a (draft) process design
h Reflect on process so far
4Implement strategy
5Monitor and report progress.
Evaluate process and
outcome. Celebrate success
when it happens.
26
An example of a participation process, Ridder, D, E. Mostert
and H.A. Wolters (eds.) (HarmoniCOP Team) (2005).
Learning together to manage together - Improving
participation in water management, University of
Osnabruck. p. 7.
Participation strategy and
stakeholder analysis
Implementing participation in a strategic
and well-thought-out way leading to a
specific goal can be a critical factor for
its success. One of the lessons learned
from the Room for the River programme
(section 6.5) is that a solid participation
strategy tailored to the specific situation
and the stakeholders involved needs
to be formulated before the start of the
process. The strategy should define the
scope, rationale, methods, tools, target
group, facilitation, timeline, required
resources and outputs of the process.
Even before developing the strategy, a
stakeholder analysis can help to identify
the stakeholders and their roles and
interests.27 The selection of stakeholders
can make or break a process. Selecting
stakeholders for a specific reason and
inviting those who are representing and
able to take decisions on behalf of a larger
group contributes to a constructive process.
Early involvement
As mentioned on the previous page,
insufficient or delayed participation can
cause problems. Engaging stakeholders
at an early stage of a project (i.e. in the
planning process) gives them a greater
opportunity to have a real say in the
development of plans, a greater sense
of ownership, and strengthens their
acceptance of interventions. Stakeholders
who are engaged at an early stage are
more convinced that their views are
actually being taken into account and
are probably more willing to participate
27
Idem, pp. 12-13.
•
11 5
in a constructive way.28 The WFD also
encourages authorities to ensure that
‘stakeholders are invited to contribute
actively to the planning process by
discussing issues and contributing to their
solution’.29
gathered will be used.30 Expectation
management can help to ensure that
stakeholders appreciate their involvement,
but accept that they might not be able to
determine the design or outcomes of the
project.31
But what is ‘early’? Should local
stakeholders participate in national spatial
planning decision-making that can affect
their city or village? This would not
contribute to effective national governance
and decision-making processes.
This question is related to the tension
between direct and representative
democracy: in a democracy, stakeholders
have elected their authorities, which gives
the latter legitimacy to develop and adopt
policies and measures. It is practically
impossible to directly engage stakeholders
in every stage of the planning process, and
doing so would be ineffective.
Transparency is important in this respect:
the rules of the game should be clear.
This also entails giving the stakeholders
access to reliable and accurate information
so that they can form a balanced view on
the situation. Not informing all stakeholders
to the same extent can lead to power
asymmetries. However, communication
should be tailored to the specific target
groups; not all stakeholders might be
familiar with specific technical language
for instance. Communication channels
such as online platforms can be put in
place to keep stakeholders informed
throughout the process. Expectation
management and transparency also
contribute to fostering trust between the
different parties, which is a key element
in successful stakeholder participation
processes.
Expectation management,
transparency and trust
Expectation management is essential
throughout the participatory process.
If the role of the stakeholders is not clear
from the beginning, this can lead to
disappointment and frustration and can
hamper progress. “Clarity” was identified
as key for achieving effective participation
processes by the European Environmental
Agency in a study on public participation
in water management. It should be
clear how the process is planned and
conducted, and how the information
European Environmental Agency (2014).
Public participation: contributing to better water
management Experiences from eight case studies across
Europe
31
Ruimte voor de Rivier, ECORYS Nederland, p. 113.
30
Ruimte voor de Rivier, p. 47.
29
EU Water Framework Directive (2000).
28
•
11 6
Facilitation
Equal opportunities
A facilitator can contribute to the success
of a participatory process by adopting an
open attitude and listening to the ideas put
forth by the stakeholders, while ensuring
that he/she manages the process so that it
serves the set goals. The facilitator could
be a government official or an external
professional facilitator. In contentious cases,
it might be a problem if the facilitator is not
considered a neutral player, as this might
undermine the legitimacy of the process
and cause conflicts.32
Finally, organizing focused training sessions
can promote constructive stakeholder
participation. Learning more about water
management and the rights and obligations
that the stakeholders have, contributes
to a constructive participation process.
Capacity building can also help to give
the different stakeholders a similar basis
to start from and similar opportunities to
develop arguments and solutions.
A facilitator in a participatory water
management process can apply numerous
tools, such as questionnaires, consultation
workshops, group discussions, role playing
games, online platforms and serious
gaming. Integrating a variety of tools
and methods in the process can help to
address the issue in different ways. Using
too many tools, however, can overwhelm
the stakeholders and complicate the
process.
Ridder, D, E. Mostert and H.A. Wolters (eds.)
University of Osnabruck, p. 30.
In some cases, gender issues might require
special attention. The equal participation
of women in planning decisions, service
management and control is considered an
important requisite for a successful
participatory process.33 While this key role
of women is emphasized in, for example,
the Dublin Principles, it is often not reflected
in decision-making processes, in which
women still often participate less than men.
32
IRC and WSP (2004) Methodology for Participatory
Assessment, www.irc.nl
33
•
11 7
6.7 Conclusions
In this chapter I briefly explored the fifth
building block of water governance:
the participatory approach, which refers to
the involvement of stakeholders in deciding
how water is used, protected, managed or
allocated. I presented it as a process that
can be composed by three main elements:
information, consultation and active
involvement. If planned and implemented
well, participation can give voice and
power to stakeholders who can contribute
to effective water management with their
knowledge, expertise and experiences.
It helps governments to balance interests
and can contribute to the sustainability of
water management. Giving stakeholders
access to information and an active role
in water management also promotes
transparency and accountability.
The international legal framework forms a
comprehensive basis for countries and
international organizations to organize
participation in a smart and constructive
way. The framework has also shaped
participatory processes in the Netherlands,
as highlighted by the examples in this
chapter. It is not always easy to achieve
meaningful participation: it can be a
frustrating, time- and money-consuming
process in which conflicts can arise.
Useful lessons can be drawn from previous
experiences, in which for example
a participation strategy, the early
involvement of stakeholders and
expectation management helped to build
constructive participatory processes.
•
11 8
7 Cooperation;
indispensable
for good water
governance
Author: Maarten Hofstra*
* In cooperation with Pui Mee Chan,
Joris Escher, Andrea van der Kerk
and Aline te Linde.
•
11 9
•
120
7.1Introduction
In this chapter the focus will be on
cooperation. Cooperation within
the broader context of good water
governance as essential element of
Integrated Water Resources
Management.
To be able to communicate clearly
about the important aspects of water
governance the Water Governance Centre
makes use of a three layer framework, the
“Three layer model of water governance”.
Chapter 1 describes this model.
Core element of this framework is that
good water management comprises of
three layers:
a content layer, an institutional layer and
a relational layer.
Content layer
Policy, knowledge and experience/skills
institutional layer
Organisation, legislation and financing
relational layer
Culture, ethics, cooperation, communication
and participation
A content layer while knowledge of
the water systems and of the nature
of the problems is essential as well as
experience and skills to be able to solve
the problems. Also it is important to
dispose of the necessary basic data and
information.
However, in most cases this is not enough
to reach a good water status. An adequate
organizational framework together with
the necessary (legal) instruments and a
good financing structure are fundamental
requirements for successful Integrated
Water Resources Management
(the institutional layer).
Besides that, for successfully solving
persistent water problems attention to
what is called the relational layer is
required. Important elements of this layer
are communication and cooperation
between different actors and with
the public, stakeholder participation,
transparency and trust.
•
121
Paragraph 7.2 first outlines the importance
of cooperation as support of the
institutional aspects and the content
aspects. In that way cooperation is an
essential element to reach the desired and
planned goals.
Content layer
institutional layer
relational layer
Secondly it is emphasized that
cooperation can only be achieved when it
is supported by elements of the content
layer and the institutional layer. Therefore
there is a two-way relationship where on
the one hand cooperation is essential for
the content and institutional aspects and
on the other hand is dependent of them.
The double arrows in the figure above
should make this clear. In paragraph 7.3
attention is given to shared ambition,
knowledge and skills, roles and
responsibilities, trust and control and
finally cultural aspects. The cases in
paragraph 7.4 give more insight in this.
The chapter ends with some concluding
remarks in paragraph 7.5.
7.2The need for good
cooperation
The reality we live in is undivided. In other
words, almost everything has to do with
everything. That was true in the past, but
even more so in the present in which we are
dealing with a world where complexity –
in the sense of growing interdependence
– is constantly increasing.
There would be much to plead for, that
in everything we are aware of these
relationships and always opt for an
integrated approach, which always takes
into account all relevant aspects. In its most
extreme form this would mean working
with one coherent policy and a coherent
implementation practice for the dealing
with and working in this world. One
overall vision and one overall philosophy.
Such a comprehensive approach and
method is obviously impossible. When
working in and dealing with this world
we will have to create boundaries to keep
it manageable. The undivided reality
therefore is cut up into parts and the
parts are then usually treated separately.
How this works we see among others in
science where abstracting one aspect of
reality - the physical, biological, legal,
economic, etc. - is common practice. This
abstraction has been widely accepted as
an effective way to deepen knowledge.
Other boundaries and demarcations that
we recognize and encounter everywhere
are policy fields (water, spatial planning,
nature conservation, economic policy, ..)
geographical boundaries (watersheds,
regions, …), administrative boundaries
(from international, through national and
regional to local) and separation between
public and private.
•
122
At the same time, there is broad
awareness that there needs to be worked
beyond these limits and demarcations.
To achieve this cooperation is required.
Cooperation between organizations
(multi-actor) and cooperation at various
levels (multi-level)
Also in water management the complexity
has gradually increased significantly.
Not only nowadays many social interests
are involved in water management, both
on the demand side and on the side of
influencing the water system, but also there
is - since the introduction of Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) a widespread awareness of both the need
for coherence in water management
(water safety, water quantity and quality
of ground and surface water with a
balanced dealing with all interests) and
the need for external coherence through
coordination with the aforementioned
policy areas (spatial planning, nature
conservation, agriculture, etc.).
Cooperation is therefore an issue that
determines to a large extent the successful
development and implementation of
sustainable water management.
Common goal or common direction
or both
In philosophy often a distinction is made
between a teleological approach and a
deontological approach. In a teleological
approach the realization of a final goal is
the central purpose. The actions are aimed
at achieving a goal (telos). Cooperation
in such a targeted approach requires
agreement to pursue and achieve such a
goal. Examples of this are partnerships
with the objective of realizing a specific
project, such as the construction of an
inland waterway (eg. Maxima Canal).
In a deontological approach the focus
is on the course of action. What matters
is that the intention and good will are
leading. It is thus more the direction
which determines than a detailed
description of the object or goal to be
realized. The joint pursuit in the 1970’s of
clean and healthy water systems, based
on the principle of combatting pollution
at the source, supported by the ‘polluter
pays’ principle, can serve as an example
of such a deontological approach.
Both approaches know their advantages
and disadvantages. For cooperation, it is
important that there is, at an early stage,
an agreement on which direction to go.
In addition, however, a broadly defined
goal (dot on the horizon) can serve as
a unifying factor and can, by means of
a long-term vision based on this, foster
cooperation. The direction and the dot on
the horizon together form as strategic
vision an essential precondition for
cooperation and therefore for successful
policy and implementation.
•
123
Rhine Action Programme
After the environmental disaster
that occurred during the Sandoz fire
in 1986, tackling the pollution of
the Rhine internationally gained
momentum. At the Sandoz factory in
Swiss Schweizerhalle toxic chemicals
got into the Rhine through the fire
extinguishing water. As far as the
Loreley in Germany no live fish
could be found any more and during
weeks all the countries along the
Rhine could not use Rhine water as a
source for drinking water.
Important factor in tackling
the pollution was the decision
to develop a joint Rhine Action
Programme without detailed and hard
legal obligations but with global
goals that gave direction to the
strategic vision: the salmon back
into the river Rhine as a symbol
of the joint pursuit of a clean and
healthy river.
Properly functioning networks, such as
the (main) water system, the (main) road
network and the (main) waterways are
vital for the continuity of society. In the
Netherlands, the national water authority
(Rijkswaterstaat) and the regional water
authorities - in close collaboration with
provinces and municipalities – are
responsible for a safe living environment
through the prevention and mitigation of
floods and excess waterlogging, a smooth
and safe flow of traffic on the network
and sufficient clean water and healthy
water systems. Taking care for adequate
emergency preparation, response and
follow-up care is an important part of this.
Cooperation in the three layer
model: Top down and bottom up
Viewed from the perspective three-layer
model of water governance, cooperation
and participation are aspects of the
relational layer. In brief you could say
“dealing with water means interacting
with each other”. However, it is only useful
to speak about it as at least a number of
basic conditions of the content layer and
the institutional layer (broadly) are clear.
Examples which may be mentioned are:
Shared ambition and vision: where
do we want to go and how do we want to
do it in broad outline?
Organization: who are involved
(with what interests) and in what way:
distinction between stakeholders and
responsible / executing parties.
(Legal) instruments: which
instruments are (already) available;
what, for example, are the underlying
principles regarding the relationships
between trust and control (Rhineland’s Anglo Saxon)?
Financing: what are the underlying
principles and how can these be
practically implemented?
•
124
That the Dutch legislator also
values good cooperation is shown
by article 3.8 of the Water Act,
which speaks about the cooperation
of regional water authorities and
municipalities in the management of
the waste water chain.
Article 3.8:
Regional Water Authorities and
municipalities shall ensure the required
coordination of responsibilities
and competences including the
independent intake, collection and
treatment of waste water with a view
to coordinated and efficient water
management.
Without wanting to give an exhaustive
list, starting from the three-layer model for
water governance, the following questions
arise when cooperation is considered:
• Is there a shared ambition and a clear
vision and strategy?
• Do the parties possess the necessary
skills, knowledge and experience?
• Are the roles and responsibilities clear?
• Is there a sufficient basis of trust to work
together?
• To what extent do cultural aspects play
a role?
In the following paragraph these questions
are further elaborated.
7.3Aspects that play
a determining role in
cooperation
This paragraph will provide deeper insight
into the five aspects mentioned here
fore that are according to the author most
needed for good cooperation.
These aspects are:
• Shared ambition and joint vision/strategy
•Knowledge and skills
• Roles and responsibilities
• Trust (and control)
•Cultural aspects
Shared ambition and joint
Vision/strategy
The joint strategy can be formulated in
the form of clear goals being pursued for
example with a timetable (teleological),
but the joint strategy may also take the
form of a joint approach (deontological)
for example focused on the optimization
of interests.
Important in the first place is a shared
ambition for which a mutual plan can be
of great help. The benefits of cooperation
should be recognized by the partners to
provide a solid basis for cooperation. In
addition, wherever possible transparency
is needed concerning the vision of the
cooperating parties in the sense of what
goals to be pursued with regard to the
interests they stand for. The lack of clarity
about everyone’s interest is a risk factor.
•
125
In the report “Grensverleggend participeren.
Handboek voor procesregisseurs”1
(Groundbreaking participating. Handbook
for process directors) the question is
raised whether there is a shared problem
definition, elaborated in a variety of
in-depth questions, some of which are
shown below.
Do the stakeholders interpret and
experience the problem to address in the
same way?
a Is the problem clear and known, or do
the different stakeholders give different
definitions of the problem?
b
Are these differences in definitions
related to the facts (e.g.: yes or no
subsidence) or values (e.g.: it is important
to maintain agriculture in the area)
or interests (e.g.: private, political,
financial interests), about a difference in
experiencing problems (e.g.: how urgent
are problems of 2050), or can they be
explained by a difference in the mission
statement (e.g.: a stakeholder who has
an integrated vision or a sectoral look at
the process)
Clarity on this point at the earliest possible
stage can greatly contribute to achieving
the joint pursued goals.
Knowledge and skills
Well educated and skilled personnel is an
important boundary condition for success.
In the WHO/UNP report (1997) “Water
Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of
Water Quality Management Principles”2
it is stated that sector organizations can
only perform well if they are properly
managed, guided and staffed. This implies
that:
• Management must offer leadership, to
ensure that the organization and its staff
have a clear and shared view of their
purpose and how this will be achieved.
• Staff must be adequate and with the
right combination of levels of expertise.
• Personnel management must be
dynamic, stimulating loyalty and
minimizing operational costs.
Important precondition for good cooperation
between organizations is also that there is
a balance in the knowledge and experience
of the parties at the table. If it is not,
the situation may arise that most of the
contributions and initiatives come from
one party and the other party may feel
uncomfortable. After all, how to assess
that what is proposed by the experienced
party also is a good strategy and approach
for the less experienced party. Within
partnerships also the importance of equal
payment should not be underestimated.
A successful way to support cooperation
and optimize the mutual exchange of
knowledge is what has been called
http://publicaties.minienm.nl/documenten/
grensverleggend-participeren-handboek-voor procesregisseurs.
1
(http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/
resourcesquality/watpolcontrol.pdf).
2
•
126
the introduction of “Kenniscoaches” –
“Knowledge coaches”.
It’s based on change in culture in which
the parties involved in the (waste) water
chain take a joint responsibility in solving
short- and long-term issues. Knowledge
Coaches are independent experts with
advanced knowledge and process skills.
Cooperating parties (municipalities,
regional water authorities and / or water
companies) can ask the support of a
Knowledge Coach to enable an extra boost
in the regional realization of the measures
on the water chain as agreed upon in
the Administrative Agreement on Water
(BAW, 2011).
For UNESCO-IHE capacity development is
core business.
Since its establishment in 1957 the
Institute has played an instrumental role
in developing the capacities of water
sector organizations in the Global South,
not least by strengthening the efforts of
other universities and research centers
to increase the knowledge and skills of
professionals working in the water sector.
Important aspect of the recent strategy
of UNESCO-IHE is the conviction that it
is imperative to strengthen the capacity
of the water sector organizations and not
just the individuals inside them.
Roles and
responsibilities
Vagueness about the roles and
responsibilities can have a paralyzing effect
on cooperation. When the boundaries of
the areas of responsibilities are not clear
or when they overlap each other, clarity
will have to be created therein first.
Without that clarity, it is likely that there is
insufficient trust and in such circumstances
the development of cooperation will be
difficult. It may be that gradually through
coordination and consultation the desired
clarity is created, but it may also be
necessary to formulate this more precise
and anchor it in legislation.
Positioning, responsibilities
and tasks water manager
The tasks of the water manager can be
divided into three interconnected
components: construction and maintenance
of the infrastructure (1), the operational
management of the water (2) and
regulating the use of the water system (3).
In brief: Infrastructure-Water-Use.
water
use
infrastructure
•
127
responsibilities and tasks in water management /
river basin management
Policy making and legislation
p
l
a
N
N
I
N
G
guiding water use
Licensing, levies
Agriculture, drinking water,
Enforcement
hydro power, etc
Stakeholder management
water control
Operaterational water management
Quantity, quality
Monitoring
Information management
water infrastructure
Maintenance
Dams, dikes, sluices, wiers,
Construction
pumps, banks, waterbeds, etc
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
Harmonization with other policy fields
Adding planning and evaluation, the
relationship with policy formulation and
instrumentation (incl. financial structure)
and the harmonization / coordination
with other policy fields (such as spatial
planning and environmental policy),
provides the above summarizing scheme.
It should be stressed that for the
implementation of the tasks the water
manager always has to focus on the
interests put forward by the various
stakeholders.
Important for the cooperation is the
question of who is responsible for which
task and how the coordination is filled
in. The more the tasks are distributed
across different parties the more effort
in coordination and alignment will be
necessary and - in order to be successful
- the importance of good cooperation will
increase.
Of course, even within organizations
such a division of tasks may occur and
may make a similar coordination and
cooperation necessary.
•
128
Trust (and control) 3
Trust can be defined as:
“The willingness of a party to be
vulnerable to the actions of another
party based on the expectation that
the other party will perform a
particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability
to monitor or control that other
party”
Castelfranchi & Falcone citing
Mayer et al
Trust is an important relational element
in living and working together. Control
can be seen as the opposite pole of trust.
However, trust and control also need
each other. Who enjoys trust, wants to
make clear that he / she is worthy of this
trust. Without control therefore is not an
option. But without trust society would
get overregulated which leads to an
unworkable bureaucracy. The challenge is
to find the optimum on the axis of trust
and control, and to put this into practice.
Activities that may contribute to increased
trust are education and training, learning
to identify and, if possible, share each
other’s values and concrete cooperation
in practice. An increasing degree of
intervention (enhanced surveillance) on
the other hand can also be an effective
3
See M.A. Hofstra (2011), Trust as core element of good
water governance, master thesis philosophy of management
and organization, Free University Amsterdam
http://watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/COM-13005-Trust_as_core_element_of_good_water_governancedef.pdf.
tool, as can be learned from the
experiences below regarding cooperation
in the waste water chain.
About Control:
The Dutch Visitation Committee
Water Chain was given the task to
assess regional agreements on the
waste water chain based on the
Administrative Agreement on Water
(BAW, 2011). These agreements are
made by the regional partners
(municipalities and regional
water authorities) themselves.
This ‘bottom-up’ process is
very important because it has a
stimulating effect in actually
achieving the agreed goals.
Strengthening regional cooperation
in the (waste) water chain is
an important instrument for
lower costs, higher quality and
vulnerability reduction in 2020.
Three steps in the so-called ladder
of intervention selected in advance:
- The first step of this ladder
of intervention is to encourage,
support and address the regions in
implementing the agreements. This
step is in operation since 2010.
- The second step is the
establishment by the Minister of
Infrastructure and the Environment
of an expert and independent review
committee (the Visitation Committee)
that is monitoring assessing and
stimulating the progress in the
different regions.
- The third and most far-reaching
step in the ladder of intervention
•
129
The collaboration ladder of Leertouwer, Van Dyck & U
Cooperatio n
Trust
Appreciate
Un d ersta nd
K n ow
together achieve a better result
and experience job satisfaction
dare to leave it to another
consider the input and the opinion
of another important
know how others think and look
at things
know what the other does
is the exercise enforcement on the
water authorities, municipalities
or water companies. This step will
only be activated if it appears that
earlier steps in the assessment
process of the Visitation Committee
show insufficient progress.
Meanwhile, the Visitation Committee
has completed its work and it can be
concluded that the first two steps
have proved to be sufficiently
effective, so the third step can be
omitted.
Basic for a shared vision and strategy is
to know and understand each other. That
takes time. Time to meet, to get to know
each other’s position and to understand
and develop the willingness to cooperate.
No hidden agendas but openness.
Even if certain tension can arise between
each other’s interests and approaches.
The collaboration ladder of Leertouwer,
Van Dyck & U, shown above, makes clear
that for building trust as a basis for fruitful
collaboration several steps will have to
be made.
In the publication of the European
Environment Agency (EEA Report No
3/2014, Public Participation: contributing
to better water management, experiences
from eight case studies across Europe)
experiences from these case studies make
clear that building networks to enhance
trust can be an important mechanism to
be successful in projects.
Based on studies on the Northern Lagoon
in Venice (Italy), the Tisza River Basin
(Hungary) and the Matarraña River
(Spain) it was concluded that “Trust and
transparency in the participation process
and in those leading it is generally
achieved through practical measures,
•
130
as when authorities and their technical
staff engage directly in face-to-face
discussions and provide direct feedback
and tangible evidence of how these
discussions have influenced the
development of the plan, for instance
by producing modified maps that reflect
proposals put forward by stakeholders
and members of the public. It has to be
stressed that the build‑up of trust needs
a long-term engagement and continuous,
open and credible communication in the
participation process.“
Cultural Aspects
Cultural aspects play an important
role in the success or failure of policy
development and implementation
of IWRM. There is a widely accepted
conviction that solutions for problems
that work in one place may not be an
adequate approach in other places due
to differences in cultures. It means that
policies to be developed and measures
to be taken will be in many cases context
dependent. Also when it comes to the
establishment of cooperation these
cultural aspects may not be overlooked.
Not only countries differ. There is – in
management literature - a widespread
conviction that the culture of
organizations in their internal as well as
their external occurrence is important
when it comes to the ability to cooperate.
Although different in different societies,
openness and willingness to cooperate
are vital elements in the attempts to
realize successful cooperation.
In their book “Water a way of life”4, Linda
Reijerkerk en Lida Schelwald-van der
Kley - based on examples of how water
can be a source of life, of inspiration,
of power, and also a source of conflict
or cooperation- give some suggestions
to water professionals working abroad
on how to take the cultural context into
account as an important element for water
governance and bridge cultural gaps.
One should also be aware of the power
distance in a society, the interrelation
between different groups, the fact that
decision-making may be collectivistic by
nature, the role of women, etc. In their
book they describe several useful tools
for understanding differences in cultures
across the world.
One of them is Hofstede’s world-wide
classification of cultures. By bridging
cultural gaps projects will be more aligned
to cultural values, resulting in more
sustainable water use, maintenance and
water governance. Some success factors
for sustainable intercultural water
management projects are given in the
shown table on page 132-133.
L. Schelwald-Van der Kley and L. Reijerkerk, Water: a way
of life. Sustainable water management in a cultural
context, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009 London UK.
See also their article Water Governance in a cultural
context, Water Governance 5/2012, p. 18-27.
4
•
131
Hire the right people!
Dutch experiences in Vietnam6
Professor Lynda Gratton (2009)5 in
questioning “How to foster a cooperative
culture” focuses - in an article about leading
teams in Harvard Business Review - at
the cooperative culture within organizations,
pointing at the fact however, that while
collaborating within the team is important,
collaborating with colleagues outside the
team is even more crucial.
Advises given by her are to ‘Hire for
cooperation’ - let it be an important
element in the selection procedures- ,’
Institute onboarding practices that foster
collaboration’ - make sure the new team
members have ample time to get
acquainted, that they create a large
network, ‘Support mentoring’ and ‘Ensure
that performance management rewards
collaboration’.
In a project that focused on the
strategic level of planning and
participation of interest groups,
as part of the analysis of the
experience with participatory
water management in Vietnam, the
question was raised whether and
how participatory water management
can be applied in the Vietnamese
context.
Some conclusions:
‘The high level of hierarchy in the
Vietnamese culture and its emphasis
on the importance of the collective
over the interests of the individual
can be obstacles to participation by
individual citizens which needs to
be handled with care.’
But also:
‘Characteristics of the Vietnamese
society, such as conflict
resolution through negotiation,
being open for new things and the
high participation in voluntary
organizations in Vietnam form a good
basis for participation in decisionmaking.’
and:
‘Methods of participation can and
must reflect the culture and context
of the people concerned, and should
not slavishly follow the paradigms
and methods from other cultures.’
Bouke Ottow; Patrick Huntjens en Ralph Lasage.
Participatief waterbeheer in Vietnam: “Dutchman’s Burden”
of deel van “Doimoi”?, Water Governance 5/2012, p. 32-37.
6
5
https://hbr.org/2009/01/four-ways-to-encourage-more-pr
•
132
Issues to consider
Do’s
What works in one place doesn’t necessarily
work in another
Take cultural and local differences into account
Adopt local traditions and practices into
sustainable solutions
Try to build on what has successfully worked in the past
Think global, act local
• Involve local people in the planning process
•Consider the broader context and consequences of new
plans
• Ensure the well-being of the local community
Ensure a match between people having to
work together, and think beyond barriers
•Create a positive and co-operative working atmosphere
•Use cultural differences as an inspiration to create new
sustainable solutions
Recognize cultural differences and local
interests and factor them into your project
Find out what cultural factors (power distance, social
relationships, knowledge level, etc) determine the success
of the project
&
Create local support for new plans
• Involve local stakeholders in the decision making process
•Visualise the situation to share conceptual understanding
•Value local people’s suggestions and use them if feasible
Understand and respect local cultural values
and beliefs
Appreciate the fact that cultural values and beliefs may
differ from your own set of values and beliefs
Listen to concerns and respond appropriately
Address the needs and concerns of local people seriously
Think ahead
• Before starting a technical project make sure that the legal,
financial and personnel responsibilities for long-term
operation and maintenance are clear and covered
• Be pro-active
Use local experts
Involve local people in the work and create jobs for them
Regular, open and honest communication
prevents delays caused by opposition and
legal procedures
• Say what you do and do what you say
• Make sure that your communication is in line with
Evaluate the project on a regular basis
the audience, use understandable language
Learn from your mistakes
•
133
Don’ts
Use one approach world-wide
Consider traditional knowledge and practices as
‘backward’
• Forget that local issues need local input
•View your plan in isolation
• Forget to address the needs of local people
•Create a conflicting atmosphere
•Let cultural differences become a source of conflict
that hinder the process
Fail to ignore culturally dependent enabling and
counteracting forces
•
•
•
Believe that public participation is the enemy of
efficiency
Think that you know best what is right for the people
concerned
Disregard suggestions of ‘lay people‘
• Impose your beliefs and values on others
• Assume you know what people think and want
Ignore or overrule people’s needs and concerns
• Trust that once realized, local people will use and
maintain the system themselves
• Wait for problems to surface
Try to do everything with your ‘own workforce‘
• Make promises you can’t keep or fail to follow-up
• Fail to take language barriers into account
Forget to evaluate the process, thereby not allowing
mid-course corrections
Annex 1
Do ’ s and don ’ ts for
successful intercultural
water management
L. Schelwald-Van der Kley and
L. Reijerkerk, Water: a way of life.
Sustainable water management in a
cultural context, Taylor & Francis
Group, 2009 London UK.
•
134
Enabling and blocking cultural
features
Based on two cases on the
implementation of preventative risk
management (Water and sanitation
programmes, WSP’s) Summerill,
Pollard and Smith7 concluded that
despite an internal desire to undertake
risk management, some aspects of
organizational culture prevented these
from reaching full potential.
Enabling cultural features included:
camaraderie; competition; proactive,
involved leaders; community focus;
customer service mentality; transparency;
accountability; competent workforce;
empowerment; appreciation of successes,
and a continual improvement culture.
Blocking features included:
poor communication; inflexibility;
complacency; lack of awareness, interest
or reward and coercion.
The topic can be illustrated further by
outlining some examples where a positive
culture of cooperation plays/has played an
important role in the successes achieved
in the respective policy fields. In the
following cases we look consecutively at
local/regional cooperation, cooperation
at a national level and international
cooperation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0048969710006480
7
7.4Case studies
Local/regional
cooperation in the (waste)
water chain
In the Dutch situation - unlike many other
countries – the tasks concerning the waste
water chain (sewerage system on the one
hand and waste water treatment on the
other hand) are not in one hand but are
divided over the municipalities (sewerage)
and regional water authorities (waste
water treatment). The wish however to
do the jobs effective and efficient asks for
cooperation between both authorities. Up
to the 1990’s it was difficult to realize such
a fruitful cooperation. Not only were there
differences in scale (> 400 municipalities
and approx. 30 regional water authorities
in those days) but also there was a lack
in mutual trust partly caused by the fact
that there was no clearly defined division
of jurisdiction. Municipalities feared that
the regional water authorities might
want to take over the responsibility for
the sewerage system and the regional
water authorities on the other hand feared
the claims of the municipalities on their
waste water treatment plants. Another
complicating factor in those days was
the role of the drinking water companies,
who – in the days that the discussion on
privatization was going on – might also
look for other tasks. The first step towards
more trust and better cooperation was
set by clear decisions and regulations
on the responsibilities of the parties in
the national legislation, including the
decision about not-privatizing the drinking
water companies. The second step was
•
135
set by the Administrative Agreement on
Water (BAW, 2011), signed by all parties,
to improve the cooperation amongst the
parties and to strive for the achievement
of a saving of several hundreds of million
euros per year in the combined task of
sewerage and waste water treatment.
National cooperation:
Case Room for the River
Almost 220 years ago, in 1798, the
need for a coherent approach to the
management of large rivers did lead to
the creation of an organization, the Office
of Public Works, today Rijkswaterstaat. At
that time, there was a rather fragmented
management by regions on the one
hand and regional water authorities
on the other. Stimulated by Christiaan
Brunings, who believed that only radical
centralization could lead to the desired
‘unity, simplicity and indivisibility’ in the
water management, as mentioned, in
1798 the Office of the Public Works set
up with a staffing level of four persons
in the administrative department and 17
people in the technical field, including 3
for the department ‘flowing rivers’. This
centralist approach was further developed
and has determined the image during
two centuries. It has certainly paid off.
However, with the project Room for the
River, a response to the floods of 1993
and 1995, a different course was chosen.
A strategy based on trust and seeking
collaboration to utilize each other’s best
qualities. “Just a selection from the
extensive package of measures of Room
for the River: a municipality commissioned
by Rijkswaterstaat, payed by the State,
removes a dike of the regional water
authority, constructs a new one and
moreover digs a side branche for
Rijkswaterstaat. Thé recipe for quarrel
between administrations? On the contrary.
Finding and creating collaboration at different levels and from the very
beginning - creates added value; better
solutions emerge. Cooperation between
governments as the key word.”8
Characteristic for the Room for the River
approach is that Rijkswaterstaat from the
start has worked on extensive cooperation
between governments at every stage
of the program; at the administrative
level, at the level of directors and at the
project level. The program is seen as the
first major project in which the intention
to jointly addressing water issues, takes
shape. Important, however, also was
that in previous years gradually more
coordination and cooperation had been
arisen in the realization of a vision for
the future of the river area. Among others,
the desire to make the step from
predominantly agriculture to more nature.
It was clear that the effort from several
parties was needed for that. At the national
level the creation of a water management
agreement, was a signal that the parties
sought each other in order to cooperate
more.
https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/longread/
samenwerking-overheden/
8
•
136
What have been important elements that
have ensured that this cooperation has
functioned effectively?
First, there was a clear consensus on the
final goal of the project Room for the River:
creating a safe situation, where possible
at the same time increasing the quality of
the landscape. In other words, in broad
there was a clear consensus on the goal
to achieve.
A second important element is the choice
to create space in the decision-making
process to make adjustments. It was not a
cast in concrete project in which no changes
were possible. However, there was a clear
scope with as - more or less hard – key
conditions timelines (completed in 2015)
and the total budget (not more than 2.3
billion euros). Characteristic for this
aspect, was the decision to work with
‘conversion decisions’. If within the scope
new insights would lead to better or more
acceptable measures than these measures
may replace previously proposed
solutions. So, built-in flexibility in the
agreements.
Third and perhaps most important
element was that the common belief had
grown that when optimum use would be
made of each other’s knowledge and skills
there would be not only arise much more
support for the package of measures, but
that both the quality and the practicality
of decisions would be strongly enhanced.
Concrete form was given to this confidence
in that the available qualities and
capacities were made leading in laying
the lead in projects with one of the
governmental authorities - national,
province, municipality or regional water
authority. A great mutual confidence
in projects for which they wore joint
responsibility.
International cooperation:
four river basins
For the Netherlands as a delta of four
international rivers, Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt
and Ems, the need to work together in
the international river basins is evident.
Not in all cases however this was easy.
Comparing the cooperation in the Rhine
catchment with the cooperation in the
basins of the Meuse and Scheldt it can be
concluded that in the first situation, the
Rhine, all this has been easier than with
respect to the Maas and Schelde.
In a recent study9 of this international
cooperation in four transboundary
basins by Nil Disco and Alex van Heezik,
attempts were made to find out what
were the causes of different development
patterns on each of the rivers. The
conclusion of the writers is that ‘natural
differences in “negotiating cultures”
and in particular indifference to these
differences, seriously hindered progress
at various junctures.’ In other words
cultural aspects played an important role.
Nil Disco and Alex van Heezik, Different Strokes for
Different Folks, 50 years of agreements and disagreements
in the Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt and Ems river Basins.
Delft (2014).
9
•
137
In structuring their arguments they make
use of the ‘Three layer model of water
governance’ as described in Chapter 1 as
well as in the introduction of this chapter.
In their conclusions they underline the
importance of the relational aspects,
‘Although “content” and institutions” are
logically prior to investments in a robust
relational layer it is also the case that,
other things being equal, more “content”
is produced and shared and a more potent
institutional structure emerges when there
is clear communication and parties are
prepared to assume the risk of mutual
trust. The Rhine action plan is certainly a
case in point.
Referring to the three layer model Disco
and van Heezik speak about a ‘relational
deficit’. Governments and delegations
should learn to be aware of cultural
differences and take the notion of
“different strokes” more seriously.
7.5Concluding remarks
Cooperation – in our network society
- is more than ever a crucial boundary
condition for being successful in policy
and practice of IWRM. In the field of
water management the awareness is
growing that relational aspects play an
important role in achieving the goals of
integrated water resources management
with relation to water safety, water supply
and water quality and ecology. Good
cooperation as one of these relational
aspects plays an important role and its
importance is increasingly recognized.
However, cooperation is not always
easy to achieve. Therefore it is relevant
to realize that elements like trust and
transparency form a indispensable basis.
Beside that there are other elements
that should be given the necessary
attention. In paragraph three attention is
paid to shared ambition and joint vision/
strategy, knowledge and skills, roles and
responsibilities, trust and control and
cultural aspects. Looking only at this last
aspect, culture, it may be clear that each
situation will have it’s own context to
be taken into account. The ideas and the
cases in this chapter should therefore
be seen as a support - knowing that
contexts differ – to give the necessary
attention to cooperation – and to analyze
what can help to establish and maintain
cooperation.
•
138
8 Water
governance
in the Awash
Basin,
Ethiopia
Author: Kevin Oosterloo
•
139
•
140
8.1 Introduction
In the first chapter of this book, we read
how the present King of the Netherlands,
HM Willem Alexander, described the
world water crises as a governance
crises, not one of scarcity. True as this
is when realizing that there is about 146
million litres of water per person per
day in the fresh water system1, they are
empty words for about a billion people
on this planet that lack access to fresh
water. This chapter explores a country
struggling with ensuring access to
clean water and developing its water
resources, namely Ethiopia. In recent
news it has been reported that Ethiopia is
heading for a period of severe drought.2
Rainfall in the past years has been below
expected precipitation levels resulting
in low levels of recharge of Ethiopia’s
water resources. In addition, the current
drought is exacerbated by the late and
erratic summer rain caused by a ‘Super
El-Niño’, some experts say.3 And climate
change is influencing rainfall patterns
and increasing the frequency of droughts
in the long run. As a result, millions
of Ethiopians are facing severe water
shortage today. Or, is it possible to find
other causes for the current draught?
Could it be that Ethiopia’s water problems,
like suggested by HM Willem Alexander,
are rooted in the way water governance is
done? Of course the premise of this book
Davie, T. (2008). Fundamentals of Hydrology, 2nd edition.
Routledge: London and New York.
BBC report: Can Ethiopia cope with worst drought in
decades? 10 November, 2015.
3
Magrath, J. (2015). Entering Uncharted Waters: El Niño and
the threat to food security. Published by Oxfam
International.
already reveals the answer. Therefore,
this chapter looks at the building blocks of
good water governance through the lens
of a case study – that of Ethiopia’s Awash
basin.
Ethiopia is a country in East Africa
(figure 1) of 1,104,300 km2 with a current
population of almost 100,000,000
inhabitants. The official language is
Amharic, but over 80 languages are
spoken. About 0.7 percent of Ethiopia is
covered with surface water; important
water systems are the Awash river and
the Blue Nile. Ethiopia is an ecologically
diverse country with desert areas in the
Northern and Eastern part of the country
and tropical forests in the South. For the
major part Ethiopia is a mountainous
country with most of its cities located at
2,000 - 2,500 metre altitudes.
The temperature has minor variations
throughout the year and seasons are
mainly defined by rainfall. Some areas
in the lower regions are hotter and
drier with a meagre 300 mm of annual
precipitation. Most precipitation occurs
in the Ethiopian highlands – exceeding
2,000 mm annually.4 Periods of heavy
rainfall are followed by long droughts,
making flooding, water shortage, famine
and displacement of people common
problems relating to water.
1
2
Viste, E., D. Korecha, A. Sorteberg (2012). Recent drought
and precipitation tendencies in Ethiopia. Theoretical and
applied climatology, 2012:1–17.
4
•
141
Figure 1 Location of Ethiopia
TUNESIA
MOROCCO
CANARY ISLANDS
ALGERIA
LIBYA
WESTERN SAHARA
CAPE VERNE
EGYPT
MAURITANIA
SENEGAL
NIGER
MALI
GUINEABISSAU
GUINEA
SIERRA LEONE
LIBERIA
BURKINA
FASO
BENIN
COTE
D’I VOIRE
GHANA
ERITREA
CHAD
GAMBIA
TOGO
SUDAN
DJIBOUTI
NIGERIA
ETHIOPIA
SOMALIA
CENTRAL AFRICAN
CAMEROON REPUBLIC
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
GABON
REP.OF
THE CONGO
DEM. REP.
OF THE CONGO
UGANDA
ANGOLA
KENYA
TANZANIA
ZANZIBAR
SEYCHELLES
MORONI
ANGOLA
MALAWI
ZAMBIA
NAMIBIA
ZIMBABWE
MOZAMBIQUE
MAYOTTE
MADAGASCAR
BOTSWANA
SWAZILAND
LESOTHO
SOUTH AFRICA
In the next paragraph, the features and
challenges of the Awash basin are briefly
described. Paragraph 8.3 dives into the
case using the building blocks of good
water governance. This chapter closes with
some conclusions and a brief look into
the future of Ethiopia’s water governance
implementation at the level of River Basin
Authorities (RBAs).
•
142
8.2 Challenges in the
Awash basin
This case study is a brief exploration
of the building blocks of good water
governance in relation to the Awash basin
in Ethiopia. It is not a deep analysis of
the governance in the basin. Rather, it
is based on experience with the basin’s
main water management agent:
The Awash Basin Authority5 (AwBA).
The Awash basin (figure 2) finds itself
landlocked, with Djibouti and Somalia
on the east separating it from the Gulf
of Aden. The basin’s main physiographic
feature is the 1280 km Awash River,
which originates in the high lands of
Ginchi, not far from the capital Addis
Abeba which is located at an altitude of
about 2,600 metres. Most inflow to the
main river occurs through the western
tributaries during rainy season. The river
meanders downstream filling a number
of artificial reservoirs. It never mouths
into the sea, but instead ends in Lake
Abbay. It is therefore a closed basin.
It is also Ethiopia’s most utilized and
industrialized basin with tremendous
economic importance. Large state-owned
sugarcane irrigation schemes, foreign
investment in horticulture, textile, leather
and steel and manufacturing industries
are found particularly in the upstream and
5
The Awash Basin Authority has a partnership with the
Dutch Water Authorities. The author is a staff member of
the Dutch Water Authorities and seconded to the Awash
Basin Authority. This article expresses his opinion and
not necessarily the opinion of AwBA itself. See also:
Hemel, R. & H. Loijenga (2013) ‘Set up of a Water
Governance Program in the Awash River Basin, Central
Ethiopia. Assessment of Water Governance Capacity in
the Awash river basin’, Water Governance Centre.
middle parts. Some industries are found
downstream in addition to large numbers
of small-holder farms. The river system is
shared by five regional states (Oromiya,
Afar, Amhara, Somali, and Southern
Nations, Nationalities and People’s region)
and two administrative towns (Addis
Ababa and Dire Dawa). For the Awash
Basin Authority’s systematic planning and
water administration the Awash basin is
hydrologically divided into 6 sub-basins,
namely, Awash Upstream Koka, Awash
Awash, Awash Halidebi, Awash Adaitu,
Awash Terminal and Eastern sub-basin.
The Awash basin has been coping with
both structural and acute water problems.
And not surprisingly, many acute problems
are manifestations of latent structural
problems. Too a large extent, this concerns
capacity gaps in human and material
resources and high investments are
needed. However, for this money to be
well spend, that is, by ensuring that
institutional arrangements will no longer
be a structural cause for acute water
problems, some crucial measures towards
the building blocks of good water
governance need to be put in place.
Progress on this prospect is more
promising on some fronts than on others.
Before going into the current state of
affairs of these building blocks, some of
these acute water problems and their latent
causes will be described in more detail
using two examples: one relating to water
quantity and another to water quality.
•
143
Figure 2 Ethiopia Awash River basin
Topography of Ethiopia and some neighbouring countries.
The Awash River basin is delineated in red.
RED SEA
ERITREA
GULF OF ADEN
SUDAN
Lake
Tana
DJIBOUTI
Dire Dawa
Blue Nile
Addis Ababa
SOMALIA
ETHIOPIA
Onno
Wenz
Shebeli
Lake
Abaja
DEM. REP.
OF THE CONGO
UGANDA
KENYA
INDIAN OCEAN
TANZANIA
ZANZIBAR
•
144
Shortages of water have all kinds of
reasons, which in itself is problematic
given that water users who are in part
responsible for these shortages may feel
absolved from blame, and point at other
causes. Better management of the spatial
and temporal variation could reduce
water shortages, for example. But much
can also be gained from implementing
more efficient irrigation techniques. Figure
3 shows the Awash River just before and
right after the drainage canal (on the
right) directs the water to an irrigation
scheme for sugarcane. Huge portions of
the river flow are redirected to irrigate
ten thousand hectares of sugarcane by
inundation – a system implemented
by the Dutch in the 1950s. At least two
irrigation schemes of similar size can be
found in Upper and Middle Awash. Such
out of proportion water use certainly adds
to the water shortage problem. Efficient
and innovative irrigation techniques such
as drip irrigation could provide a solution,
but the incentives to invest in are missing.
This comes in two common forms and
are not unique to Ethiopia:6 1) insecure
property rights; 2) the low price of water.
On the first, the institutional arrangement
at play is that the government ultimately
owns the land. A consequence could be
that the government is held responsible
for making the investment in more
sustainable irrigation techniques – add to
that the fact that several sugarcane farms
are state-owned and one gets a picture of
the nature of such negotiations—and
may need donor money to do so. In the
meanwhile, the price of water is too
low to make cutting back on usage
economically interesting. The water
charge is determined by the Council of
Ministers and is currently set at ETB 3
service charge per 1,000 m3 of water –
about 12 Eurocents. This amount can
be more than a factor 10 less than the
costs of operating and maintaining the
diversions, primary canals and drains and
access roads. For example, in Amibara
(Middle Awash) the costs of management,
operation and maintenance is estimated
to be around ETB 521 per hectare per
year, or ETB 35 for 1,000 m3 of water.7
Financing policies such as these both
discourage efficient use of water as well
as jeopardize the long-term financial
sustainability of water management.
These structural causes for water
shortage will only cease when tackled
on a governance level – through land
use right policies and pricing and levy
policies.
By the same token, the Awash Basin is
facing challenges with water quality. The
country is in transition and is growing
fast economically. Industrial activity is
increasing at a pace which is difficult to
keep up with for institutions involved in
environmental regulation and protection.
7
For a discussion on insecure property rights in Africa
and their relation to lack of investments in new
techniques in agriculture, see Robinson and Acemoglu
(2013), Why Nations Fail. The origins of power, prosperity
and poverty, Crown: Ney York. More on property rights
can be found, for example, in the work of economist
Ronald Coase.
6
Halcrow (2007): ‘Proposed restructuring of the Awash
Basin Agency’, Vol. 1, main report. Halcrow is a UK-based
engineering and consultancy firm which was hired to do
a thorough scan of the Awash Basin, including studies on
geomorphology, flood protection, and basin
management. At the time of the consultancy assignment,
the Awash Basin Authority was still named Awash Basin
Water Resources Administration Agency (ABWRAA).
•
145
One of the consequences of industrial
activity is more uncertainty about what
substances enter the water system and
biosphere. The stream of waste water
in figure 4 comes from the outlet of a
Chinese industrial zone, where mostly
metal industry can be found. Nearby
farmers use this stream to water their
crops and have their cattle drink from
it. Cases of cattle dying after drinking
from this stream have been reported, but
due to broken lab equipment testing on
heavy metals, for example, is either not
happening, or, happening rarely with
not enough samples to get a good picture
of the water quality. And testing samples
for pesticides and insecticides is virtually
not being done in Ethiopia. Nonetheless,
when treated, the reuse of industrial process
water by local population is something to
encourage. To provide an answer to such
water quality challenges, industrial activity
needs to be coupled with systematic
planning of river basin management.
Currently, a permit system is being set
up which will help regulate industrial
water use and discharge. And, although
discharging untreated waste water is
Figure 3 Water quantity: a large irrigation scheme near Metahara,
Middle Awash, diverts a huge chunk of the river flow to irrigate thousands
of hectares of sugarcane. Photo courtesy of Dutch Water Authorities,
taken on a field visit in March, 2015.
•
146
essentially illegal, enforcement of these
permits, especially on a basin-wide scale,
is not yet realistic. For the time being,
pollution like this will remain to affect
the water quality in the basin virtually
unmitigated. Fortunately, there are cases
of industries that have installed good
treatment set-ups on their own initiative.
Figure 4
Industries
the outlet
taken on a
Water quality: uncontrolled waste water discharge in Upper Awash.
use groundwater and farmers subsequently use the waste water from
to irrigate crops. Photo courtesy of Dutch Water Authorities,
field visit in March, 2015.
•
147
8.3 Reviewing the Awash
case through building
blocks of good water
governance 8
Earlier, two examples were given which
explain the interplay between structural and
acute problems and how these become
challenges for AwBA. This paragraph
will go into the underlying governance
arrangements by structuring this analysis
with the building blocks for good water
governance. In addition, some references
will be made to the new OECD principles
on water governance (see chapter 1).
Administrative
organization
Ethiopia has a federal system where
regional states enjoy high autonomous
power and have their own constitutions
in line with the federal constitution.
The national government has set out
sector policy lines and decided upon
the establishment of River Basin
Organizations (RBOs) for decentralized
water resource management. In this
structure, a Basin High Council (BHC)
brings policies to the parliament, being
the RBO’s political arm, and River Basin
Authorities (RBAs) being the RBO’s
technical arm, has the operational
mandate to implement Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM).
The fundamental planning unit is the
hydrological boundary of a basin. RBOs
are thus federal institutions cutting right
An older version of this part was published in Water
Governance, 2015, edition 5.
through the administrative borders of
regional states. Because of path
dependency, the RBAs in Ethiopia are
neither set up nor operating in an
institutional landscape that neatly give
way to the powers and duties RBAs
should have. Moreover, they exist in
diverse socio-economic conditions and
hydrological regimes with complex
cultural traditions and ethnic tensions.
And this trickles down all the way to
the level where RBAs need to fulfil their
responsibilities.
In the case of AwBA, before its current role
as an RBA, it was a project administration
office for a state irrigation farm in Middle
Awash. Now, it has to make itself familiar
with the role of coordinating activities in
the entire basin, which is three times the
size of the Netherlands, and reconciling
wishes of the many stakeholders. In line
with the OECD principle of clearly
allocating distinguishing roles and
responsibilities for water policy-making
and implementation, it is instrumental for
AwBA to take their environment with them
in this growth process. And significant
steps are undertaken to this effect. Besides
clear roles and responsibilities, this
building block harbours another principal
element, which is capacity. The OECD speaks
about “adapt[ing] the level of capacity of
responsible authorities to the complexity
of water challenges to be met […]”.9
Chapter 2 of this book simply states that:
“the [responsible authority] must have
access to sufficient financial resources to
execute its tasks”. Some more discussion
8
OECD principles on water governance, 2015.
9
148
•
on this issue is given in discussion of the
building block on finance.
Water legislation
National policy sets the direction for
the country’s water governance and
points at the aim “to put water resources
of Ethiopia to the highest social and
economic benefit for its people”.10 All
rules put in place to realize this need to
be in line with the federal constitution,
which has primacy over all federal and
state laws. When a rule is adopted by the
House of Representatives of the central
government, it becomes a so-called
proclamation. On the onset are three
important proclamations through which
IWRM is legally embedded:
• Proclamation No. 197/2000 Water Resources Management;
• Proclamation No. 300/2002 Pollution
Control;
• Proclamation No. 534/2007 River Basin
Councils and Authorities.
Proclamations are formulated at a high
political (national and state) level and
usually not that detailed. Pursuant the
proclamations, various regulations
and directives – sometimes used
interchangeably with guidelines, AwBA
can exert much of its influence on the
legal system through proposing directives
– expand Ethiopian law further. Directives
are developed closer to the scale where
the responsible authority, i.e. a River
Basin Authority, is supposed to enforce
Ethiopian Water Resources Management Proclamation,
Addis Ababa, 9 March, 2000.
10
the laws, but have to be approved still by
the Council of Ministers, who is mandated
by the House of Representatives to then
issue them. The proclamations named
before provide enough handhold to derive
roles and responsibilities for the RBAs.
It is, however, the striking comparison
with reality that shows how a good
legal framework on paper has had little
impact on the ground thus far. There
is a mismatch between legislation and
capacity to enforce it. This creates a reality
where water users are officially breaking
the law, but in lieu of punishment are
given leeway to undertake the necessary
actions to comply with law in the future.
It will be interesting to see how water
users that did not anticipate well enough
will behave once AwBA’s enforcement
capacity is up to the mark. Given the
characteristic ambiguity of law, this
period is also exciting for AwBA to claim
the extent of their operational mandate.
Planning
On planning, two major challenges
can be found: 1) planning in scope: i.e.
increasing systematic planning with
water management tasks which have
thus far not been part of AwBA’s range of
activities; 2) planning in time horizon:
i.e. drafting strategic river basin plans over
periods of 5 - 10 years. Real incorporation
of a systematic planning approach at
AwBA would require expansion of human
capacity since AwBA is understaffed
in relation to their mandate area.
Systematic planning, though necessary
and useful in the long run, does not yield
benefits on the short term for most of
•
149
the staff involved in water management
operations. Efforts on systematic planning,
for example, are undercut by unforeseen
drought, even though such efforts should
help anticipate on drought events.
However, AwBA is on the right path and in
a step-by-step manner planning receives
a bigger emphasis. It almost goes without
saying that this will need to take the form
of Ethiopian conditions and planning
customs, which is characteristically more
ad hoc and context-driven.
Financing
The OECD dedicates a principle to ensuring
that governance arrangements help
mobilise water finance and allocate financial
resources in an efficient, transparent
and timely manner. Likewise, chapter 5
emphasized that sound financing must be
available. Yet bureaucratic rules such as
tedious procurement procedures, locked
budgets and heavily controlled cash
streams cause AwBA to struggle with
this aspect of good water governance.
As water needs to be managed at an
appropriate scale, and considering that
therefore RBAs need some degree of
financial autonomy, budget transfers to
AwBA is much needed. Some insight
into institutional structures in many
developing countries should give away
why this is a highly challenging operation.
Whereas in the Western world we put so
much trust in our institutions – election
results that are accepted almost without
questioning, the assumed independency
of the judicial system, etc.
– the developing world is impacted more
by tacit institutional arrangements and
power and stature attributed to the
individual. Position dictates rules more
than rules shape position. This can
manifest itself in a reluctance to accept
transfers of power and budget within
governance structures. In the meanwhile,
there is a huge decentralization effort
to ensure water management at ‘the
lowest appropriate level’. This is ironically
driven, it seems, by literature on water
governance and policy design which
has its empirical basis in the (Western)
developed world. Consequently, when
policy-makers fail to negotiate the proper
budget transfers, and only tasks and
responsibilities are decentralized, such
an effort may be counter-productive. As
successful decentralization must include
some degree of financial autonomy.11
Sustaining this financial autonomy often
depends upon the establishment of some
form of water pricing or tariffs, having the
users obeying such payments, and having
the proceeds remain within or return to
the development of the basin. With the
strong influence of the Ethiopian ministry
of Finance and Economic Development
(MoFED), which collects revenues directly,
AwBA currently operates without real
autonomous budgets.
That is not to say that financial resources
are not available. Rather, when budget is
needed, a proposal needs to be drafted
and forwarded to MoFED to justify the
allocation of funds, which will then go
ahead. Of course, proposal-writing also
requires human capacity.
A more elaborate discussion on financial autonomy as a
condition for decentralization can be found in: Blomquist,
Dinar, Kemper (2005). Comparison of institutional
arrangements for river basin management in eight basins.
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3636.
11
•
150
Participation
On many fronts, there is stakeholder
participation. AwBA visits community
leaders in faraway areas of the basin
personally or goes to large-scale water
users such as sugarcane farms, with the
Director General himself leading these
visits. Stakeholders are also involved in
collective settings. In October 2014,
AwBA and the Ministry of Water, Irrigation
and Electricity (MoWIE) organized a public
forum to address recent floods and
many audience members spoke up. And
there are more examples of stakeholder
meetings and public platforms where water
issues are discussed. But stakeholder
participation is mostly construed as
information provision, and to a lesser
extent consultation. Active involvement,
such as participation in permit application
procedures, is not yet present. Neither
are stakeholders actively involved in the
planning process of AwBA. This makes it
very hard to balance the interest of the
stakeholders. Recognizing the importance
of stakeholder participation, the national
Ethiopian government wants to give
citizens a voice in water governance
issues.12 Thus AwBA is tasked with
ensuring the use of water resources in an
“equitable and participatory manner.”13
It seems that practices to involve
stakeholders structurally are underway.
12
Fekahmed Negash, Executive Director Nile Basin Initiative,
personal communication, Adama, January 2015.
13
River Basin Councils and Authorities Proclamation,
Addis Ababa, 23 July, 2007.
Cooperation
Finally, some words must be reserved
for cooperation in water management,
the newly added building block. In light
of capacity gaps, cooperation becomes
all the more important. On several
fronts, AwBA is not yet executing IWRM
activities that are normally within a
RBA’s portfolio. This prompts even more
cooperation with allies in the basin
to share resources and capacity and
making sure the burden of IWRM is
shared. There has been cooperation with
the regional environmental bureaus,
information sharing with meteorological
and knowledge institutes. Naturally,
there is close cooperation with MoWIE.
For example on lab analyses of water
samples. Yet there are also areas where
cooperation needs to be intensified, such
as the industry sector. The current effort
to invite industries to apply for a water
use permit – under the mentioning that
usage without a permit is illegal – has
brought AwBA in closer contact with
some of the industries. Moreover, there
are opportunities for cooperating on
best practices with enterprises that have
sophisticated treatment systems for their
waste water. By setting up a pilot, AwBA
could gain some useful feedback on their
approach, guidelines or communication
policy. Yet this is currently not happening
as it would imply unequal action vis-à-vis
other similar enterprises, a choice
decision-makers may find too difficult to
make.
•
151
8.4 Conclusions
By implementing the building blocks of
good water governance, AwBA slowly
morphs from a technical unit – habitually
executing their operational activities –
into a coordinating governance unit
safeguarding the sustainable development
of the entire basin. A successful and
proper progression is all but guaranteed
and one of the toughest parts in this
long-term effort is contrasting this reality
with the goals in mind. Simply pointing
at the need for these building blocks is
not enough. Adequate financing for water
management services or empowering
RBOs is recognised as important, yet will
only receive the high and essential political
support when issues they relate to become
highly salient. To a lesser extent, we see
this in The Netherlands too. However, in
Ethiopia, institutions are much more
reactionary, and implementing the building
blocks for good water governance
becomes side-tracked by short-term
interests or acute scenarios like the current
drought. Hence it is best to operate on two
levels. One, incremental steps that need
to be taken, structurally and consciously,
should become part of the modus operandi.
And second, leap forward by recognising
opportunities for real institutional change
at critical junctures. The current drought
could be a wake-up event for such sudden
institutional change.
What this case mostly shows is that the
building blocks for good water governance
are not a blueprint. They instead point
at some necessary ingredients. And just
like with a real dinner you may have to
add some carrots, use some wine or cut
back on the salt. But first you’ll make sure
you know which ingredients you’ll need.
Then you’ll look at your kitchen to see
if you may need some additional pans,
or maybe a sieve, or maybe even a chef
to help you prepare; then you’ll look at
your finances to see if this is within your
budget. And the analogy continues. All in
all, implementing good water governance
is an art of the possible, contingent
on context; not a coordinated effort to
achieve institutional change. This harbours
one big danger: successes made so far
can be dialled back.
•
152
•
153
background
Authors
Herman Havekes
Maarten Hofstra
Herman Havekes graduated in Dutch law
from the University of Utrecht. Following
five years employment at the Central
Department of Public Works and Water
Management, he has been employed
by the Association of Regional Water
Authorities (UvW) in The Hague since
1984. Between the end of October 2008
and 1 January 2011, he was seconded
to the Directorate General for Water, as
Water Act project manager. In addition to
his work for the UvW, Herman is affiliated
to the Water Governance Centre in The
Hague. He has produced a large number
of publications about water law and water
board law. In early 2009 he obtained his
doctoral degree from the University of
Utrecht with a thesis on the institutional
changes that have taken place in regional
water authorities over the past fifty years.
In autumn 2010, together with Marleen
van Rijswick, he produced the book
‘Waterrecht in Nederland’ which has in
2012 also been published in English under
the title ‘European and Dutch Water Law’.
At the end of 2009 he was presented
the Schilthuispenning award for his
publications.
Maarten Hofstra graduated in Civil
Engineering (sanitary engineering) and
the Philosophy of Management and
Organization.
Since 1976, he has been working in the
field of integrated water management.
He was actively involved at national
level (policy and implementation)
and internationally, specifically in the
International Rhine Committee (between
1977 and 2010).
In 1985, he wrote the report “Omgaan met
water/Living with water” which marked
the start of integrated water management
in the Netherlands.
For many years, Maarten was employed
at the Ministry responsible for Water
Management, where he bore responsibility
for policy, planning, legislation on and
the financing of water management and
the implementation of these activities
by the relevant government department,
Rijkswaterstaat.
He was also Director of Water Quality and
Information at RIZA and National Water
Manager for Rijkswaterstaat.
Since February 2010, Maarten Hofstra has
been working as Senior Advisor Water
Policy and Water Governance of UnescoIHE and for the Water Governance Centre
in the Netherlands.
•
154
Andrea van der Kerk
Bart Teeuwen
Andrea van der Kerk has worked as an
independent consultant for 5 years on
research and communications projects
related to water governance. Projects
included water governance studies in
Colombia, Zambia and Indonesia.
Andrea holds a Master of Science degree
in International Relations (cum laude)
and wrote her Master’s thesis on the
interaction between local and global
water governance. As a consultant, she
has worked for several (international)
organisations such as UNESCOIHE, Water Integrity Network, Water
Governance Centre, SIWI and the UNWater Decade Programme for Advocacy
and Communications (UNW-DPAC).
Andrea has also been Secretary of
the Netherlands National IHP-HWRP
Committee; a platform of Dutch policymakers, scientists and practitioners
connected to the water programmes
of UNESCO (IHP) and WMO (HWRP). In
January 2016 Andrea has started working
as Programme officer at IRC.
Bart Teeuwen has been working as an
independent water governance adviser
since 2006, focusing on institutional and
legal aspects of water management. His
current activities are mainly focused on
supporting water legislation of countries
in Souht and South East Asia.They are
based on years of experience in the
academic sector as a lecturer and
researcher at the Delft Technical University
(1974-1984) and in the government sector
as a legal specialist, manager and water
governance adviser at the then Ministry
of Public Works, Transport and Water
Management (1985-2005).
•
155
Robert van Cleef
Kevin Oosterloo
Robert van Cleef graduated in Business
Economics from the University of
Amsterdam in 1990. One year later
he graduated for a Masters degree in
Environmental Science at the Universities
of Amsterdam, Wageningen and
Leiden. He was employed for ten years
at KPMG Sustainabilty working as a
senior consultant for the water, waste and
electricity market. In 2004 he was
the cofounder of Sterk Consulting,
a consultancy that focusses on economic
and legal aspects of water management.
Within Sterk Consulting Robert is
responsible for the theme ‘economic and
financial aspects of water management’.
He specialized in the financing of water
system both on an national and an
international level. Together with the
Water Governance Centre he developed
the Financing Assessment Tool (FAT).
In recent years he did research on the
financing system of fresh water and
the cost recovery principle of Dutch water
management. Internationally Robert
functions as an international trainer
on water governance (financing) and
Robert supported the Water Resources
Management Agency (WRMA) in Kenia
to develop a sound financing system.
Robert often works together with
universities, engineering firms and other
knowledge institutions. He regularly
speaks at seminars and conferences and
publishes regularly on his field.
Kevin Oosterloo holds a bachelor degree
in Industrial Engineering & Management
(graduated in 2011) after which he
continued with an MSc in Environmental
Science at Utrecht University, graduating
in 2014. In 2013, he was a research fellow
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
researching transboundary water
politics. After graduation, Kevin started
working for the Association of Regional
Water Authorities (UvW). Through the
Young Expert Programme of the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Netherlands Water Partnership (NWP),
the UvW has seconded Kevin to the
Federal Government of Ethiopia for two
years where he assists several Regional
Dutch Water Authorities in their partner
programme with the Ethiopian side.
He mainly works on implementation of
Integrated Water Resource Management
(IWRM) at basin level.
•
156
Colophon
Publisher
Address
Water Governance Centre (WGC)
P.O. Box 93218
Authors
2509 AE The Hague
The Netherlands
Andrea van der Kerk, Bart Teeuwen,
Robert van Cleef and Kevin Oosterloo
[email protected]
www.watergovernancecentre.nl
Design and production
insandouts communication design print
Copyright © 2016
Circulation
750
•
157
This publication has been made possible by
the financial support of Dutch Water Authorities,
NWB Fund, the Foundation for Applied Water
Research (STOWA), the Ministry of Infrastructure
and the Environment and Rijkswaterstaat.
Without their contributions this publication
would not have been possible.
•
159

Building blocks for good water governance

Transcription

Similar documents

Aziza Akhmouch

NCR_resources_SGLG

Course description

Set the Record Straight June 2015

Institutionalism Revisited - Copenhagen Business School

BOMOS in e-SENS

Issue 12 Mar - April 2014

Trusted Advisor Report - David Consulting Group

infrastructure for growth and job creation

values